Commons Sitting of 20 June 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—FOR Durham County (Northern Division) in the room of Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered— Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland) Salaries*; Contagious Diseases*.
First Reading—Contagious Diseases* [Bill 163].
Second Reading— Gaols [Bill 93]; Railway Travelling (Ireland) [Bill 137], negatived; Lunacy (Scotland)* [Bill 146]; Countess of Elgin and Kincardine's Annuity* [Bill 156]; Naval and Victualling Stores [Bill 151] (Lords); Punishment of Rape* [Bill 157] (Lords); Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (Amendment)* [Bill 162] (Lords).
Committee—Railways Construction Facilities (recommitted)* [Bill 111]; Pilotage Orders Confirmation* [Bill 131]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-committed)* [Bill 149].
Report — Railways Construction Facilities* [Bill 111]; Pilotage Orders Confirmation* [Bill 131]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [Bill 149].
Considered as amended—Superannuations (Union Officers)* [Bill 133]; Sale of Gas (Scotland)* [Bill 125].
Third Reading — Government Annuities, &c. [Bill 114]; Collection of Taxes [Bill 96], negatived;Burials Registration* [Bill 126]; Servants Hiring (Scotland* [Bill 108].

COMPANY OF AFRICAN TRADERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it be the intention of the Government to grant a Subsidy of £5,000 per annum, or any other sum, to the "Company of African Traders (Limited);" if so, upon what conditions the Subsidy will be granted, and whether it will previously be submitted to Parliament for approval?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that last year an application was made to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in favour of a subsidy which the noble Lord at first was disposed to decline; but upon subsequent consideration he brought the matter before the Treasury with a recommendation in favour of it. Other papers had reached the Treasury which showed that the Company it was proposed to subsidize was a Company engaged in general trade in competition with all those carrying on commerce between this country and Africa. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no doubt that this demand ought not to be granted without a great deal of consideration on the part of the House, and ample time being given for all those affected by it to be heard. He had no difficulty in saying that he should make no such proposal during the present Session. He thought, however, it would be advantageous if the Government laid on the table the papers received. That would give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of seeing the case, but for his own part he thought the objections to the proposal were objections of very great weight.

THE "CASTILLA," "LOLA," & "LAURA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the brig Castilla and brigantine Lola, captured under Spanish colours in October, 1860, by Her Majesty's ship Barracouta, on suspicion of slave trading, were carried into Port Royal, Jamaica, instead of being taken before the Mixed Commission Court at Havanna; whose fault was it that those ves-

  2027
  sels remained in Port Royal Harbour, untried, till May, 1861, by which demurrage was incurred to the, amount of £10 a day for 229 days in one case, and £11 for 230 days in the other, besides other expenses, amounting in the whole to more than £6,000; and whose fault occasioned the delay and expense in adjudicating the case of the brig Laura, in Antigua, complained of by Captain Hillyar, of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus, in January, 1862?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, the vessels were captured in the waters of Jamaica on the 14th and 15th of October, 1860, by the Barracouta. They had no papers on board in the usual form which was necessary for a commercial ship; they had no flag, no logbook, and no manifests, and, consequently, Commander Ward thought they were not entitled to any claim of nationality, and took them, to Jamaica for adjudication, by the Vice Admiral's Court. A long correspondence ensued, and on the 6th of January, 1861, a few months afterwards, the Court declined to adjudicate without further information, and in May it declared it had no jurisdiction. The vessels had to be transferred to Havanna, to be tried by a mixed Commission; that was the cause of the delay in the case of the two first ships. As to the Laura, the delay in her case was occasioned by the owners.

TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Has his attention been called to the Parliamentary Return, No. 363, as to the Transfer of Land, presented to this House on the 7th of June instant, showing that the poundage (above ad valorem Duties) paid to the Consolidated Fund was £87 6s. for obtaining indefeasible titles under the English Land Transfer Act, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, to Estates in England, the gross value whereof was £98,499; and that the poundage (above ad valorem Duties) payable to the Consolidated Fund for obtaining indefeasible titles to Estates of the like value in Ireland, under the Irish Land Transfer Acts, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 72, and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 123, would be £492 9s. 11 d., being rather more than five and a half times the poundage chargeable for indefeasible titles to English Estates; and will he endeavour to remedy that anomaly through his promised measure for registering Titles to Land in Ireland?
  MR. O'HAGAN, (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND), in reply, said, it was not quite certain that, it would be possible to incorporate the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the promised measure. He would, however, see what could be done.

NAVY—THE "GLADIATOR."—QUESTION.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSIONEsaid, he rose to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, which he was compelled to preface with some observations, and if out of order in doing so, he would move the adjournment of the House. He wished to know, Whether the Gladiator was still under orders to proceed to Cape Coast Castle; for in his opinion that vessel was utterly incompetent to remove 500 men with any degree of safety to the expedition. It was necessary to explain his reasons for that opinion, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the House. The Gladiator was a ship of 1,200 tons burden, with a main deck; but the space occupied by the boilers and ship's company reduced her carrying power to 800 tons. At that season of the year the winds prevailing in the Gulf of Guinea were from the westward, and, consequently, when the ship arrived at Cape Coast Castle and took on board the troops and baggage, she would, in her overloaded state, have to contend with contrary winds of considerable strength for 700 miles before she could turn the boundary point, where strong north-easterly winds were to be looked for. It was impossible, in the, wet weather which would prevail in the Gulf of Guinea, that the Gladiator could carry below 500 men—for that was the number—448 rank and file, and 19 officers, with their followers. Some must be carried on deck, and they would be exposed to the wet from the time they left Cape Coast Castle until they arrived at their destination. He would submit for the consideration of the Government, whether it would not be better to send a ship capable of carrying these troops with safety and comfort. The Galatea, a ship of 3,000 tons, had just arrived with troops from the Mediterranean, and might be employed for that purpose. He entered his solemn protest against the Gladiator being sent on that service. In order to place himself in order, he would move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he thought that what he was about to state would be satisfactory to the hon. Baronet. The War Office had made an arrangement by which instead of the removal of 500 men from Cape Coast Castle 700 men would be removed. Of these, 500 would go to the West Indies and 200 to Lagos. From Lagos 200 would be removed to Sierra Leone station. That had necessitated an alteration in the arrangement of the Admiralty. It was now proposed that the Gladiator should go straight to Madeira, and she had started that day. She would coal at Madeira, in order to be prepared to take in tow the Waubojeen transport, which would carry the troops. The transport would start from this country on Thursday, accompanied by the Bulldog, which would tow her out of the Channel, and go with her to Madeira, if necessary. At Madeira she would find the Gladiator waiting for her. The Gladiator would tow her to Sierra Leone, and thence to Cape Coast Castle. The Waubojees would there embark the troops for Barbadoes; and the Gladiator, after towing her into the offing, if necessary, would embark the 200 men for Logos, and from Lagos would return to Sierra Leone with about the same number of men to be stationed there. The Gladiator would thence return to England.

THE CONFERENCE. — QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government in regard to circumstances connected with the Conference. In the first place I wish to ask the Government, Whether they can give the House any information respecting a statement, believed to be perfectly authentic, on the part of the Prussian Minister, at the last meeting of the Conference? He is alleged to have stated that in case the German ports were blockaded, the German Powers would no longer consider themselves bound by the Convention of Paris in regard to privateering. I wish in the second place to learn from Her Majesty's Government whether, in case of the Conference breaking up its proceedings on Wednesday, we are to understand that hostilities will commence on the 26th? The third question is, whether if the Conference concludes, under any circumstances, its business next Wednesday, we may understand from the Government that the protocols will be placed immediately on the table of this House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as the Questions are of considerable importance, it would be better if he would put them on the paper. An answer will then be given to them to-morrow.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I do not think that these are Questions which it is at all necessary to place on the paper. I consider that I am perfectly justified, in the present state of affairs, in putting these Questions to Her Majesty's Government without a formal notice.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Although I fully see the inconvenience of provoking any discussion at this moment, yet, recollecting as I do the way in which we drifted into war with Russia, and feeling the urgency of this occasion, and the very perilous precipice upon which the country stands at the present moment—I wish to ask some Member of the Government, if the noble Lord is not in his place to-night, what significance we are to attach to certain words uttered in another place, to the effect that Her Majesty's fleet is fully prepared for any service which it may be called upon to render. These words are so serious, and the peace of this country is so imperilled at this moment, that I take the first opportunity in the interests of peace of asking Her Majesty's Government what significance they place on those words—whether it is one of those idle threats which have lately been too much used in another place; or whether it is a bonâ fide intention to commit the suicidal act of plunging this country into a war with Germany? ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may not agree with me in thinking this to be a suicidal act, but at all events they will agree with me, that if this country is to be plunged into a war we ought to have definite and certain information, so that we shall not drift day by day into a state of things which may involve this country into a war, the end of which no man can foresee. I, therefore, hope the House will support me in this demand, and that they will insist upon knowing what is the significance of the terms that have been used in another place.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I was not aware the adjournment of the House had been moved. I am very sorry that inconvenience should arise either to the right hon. Gentleman or to others with respect to the circum-

2031
stances in which we stand. But no intimation was given to me, or, as far as I am aware, to any other Member of the Government, of the right hon. Gentleman's Questions, until the moment when they were put, and I must confess it appears to me that it would be greatly for the convenience and advantage of the House if notice were given before such Questions were put. At any rate, it so happens that these Questions have been asked in the absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I have had no communication with him on the subject, and it rests with him to represent the Government in this House upon matters of this great importance. In my opinion I should altogether have departed from my duty if I had answered the Questions put to me in any other way than by respectfully recommending, as I did, that notice of them should be given for to-morrow.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I fully admit that it is for the convenience of the House that ordinarily notice should be given of important questions. But there are times—emergencies—there are occasions of so serious a character as to justify Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House in insisting, as far as they can, on having a definite answer from the Government as to their intentions in a crisis such as this. It is not, Sir, as if every member of the Cabinet was not in full possession of the circumstances of the case. Every member of the Cabinet must be aware of what passed on Saturday, and there is not a member of the Cabinet sitting on that Bench who is not capable of giving an answer to the Questions of my right hon. Friend. I trust that the House will insist on having a definite answer.
After a pause,
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: It appears that on this serious Question the Government is not in a position to give an answer; they are here without their head; they are a corpus entirely deprived of that which would give them any vitality. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is speaking for a divided Government on this subject. I venture to say that no one hon. Member of the Government will deny that assertion. I apprehend that all our information is derived from the ordinary public means, which, whilst they give us information coming from abroad of what transpires here, also inform us of the divided state of the Government. I hope the words referred to by the hon.
2032
Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) will have the vitality and force he attributed to them. I trust they are words of power, and that in a few days we shall have a Government that will intimate to the despotic powers of the Continent who are now oppressing a weaker nation, that we have a mind of our own in England, and are not prepared to see the just influence of this country in abeyance on a subject in which we have taken so great a part, and our recommendations thrown back in our faces with insult and contumely. It is certain if we put forth our right arm—the naval strength of the country—in a manner suited to the dignity of the nation, we should soon see the objects for which the Conference was commenced satisfactorily accomplished.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I think the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard must have shown Her Majesty's Government that the interest felt in this subject is not confined to this side of the House. I am sure that when these few observations are read by the country to-morrow, people will feel and will probably express a deep sense of the position in which the House of Commons is placed by the refusal of information on the part of Her Majesty's Government upon those questions which excite the country from one end to the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, that in the absence of the noble Lord and of notice of the intention to ask these Questions, it is impossible for him or any other Member of the Government to reply to them. But, Sir, I think that on the eve of such important and momentous events, if it be true that there is no Member of Her Majesty's Government competent or willing to reply to Questions of this importance except the noble Lord himself, then it is the duty of that noble Lord to be here in his place. [Viscount PALMERSTON at this moment entered the House.] I rejoice to see that the noble Lord has taken his seat. I trust he will be able and willing to give that information which hitherto has been asked in vain from Her Majesty's Government. Probably the noble Lord will be informed by one of his Colleagues who sits next him what the information sought for is. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Repeat the Questions.] Well, then, I will repeat them, and I ask—first, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give the House any information with respect to the declaration alleged to

2033
have been made at the Conference on Saturday by the representative of Prussia, that in the event of the blockade of the German ports being in their opinion inefficiently carried out, Prussia would depart from the stipulations on the subject of privateering contained in the Treaty of Paris? secondly, Whether in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, if the Conference should terminate its labours unfavourably on Wednesday, the resumption of hostilities on Monday next may be expected? and thirdly, Whether, in the event of the Conference terminating on Wednesday, under any circumstances, the Protocols containing the proceedings of the Conference will be immediately placed on the table of this House?
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I hope the noble Viscount will also give an explanation as to the significance of the words used by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, in another place, that the fleet was prepared to go anywhere. Were those words used in a warlike sense?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My noble Friend was asked a Question, whether the British fleet is in a condition to do anything that might be required of it? [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: The question was, whether it is prepared to go to the Baltic?] Well, the Baltic or anywhere else. My noble Friend's answer was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington about his army, that the fleet is prepared to go anywhere and do anything, ["Oh, oh!"] I think the British fleet is perfectly capable of performing any service. I do not think that indicates any particular service. I say generally, whatever contingency may happen, the British fleet, I am persuaded, will be found prepared. With regard to the Questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, and repeated by the noble Lord, I would rather decline to state what passed at the Conference held on Saturday or any other day. There was an agreement that what passed at the Conference should not be made public. I am sorry to say that many reports have got abroad as to what has passed between the Ministers at the Conference; but I am sure the House will see that a statement made in breach of confidence, whoever may have committed that breach, is a very different thing from a statement made by the Minister of the Crown in this House, which carries with it authenticity, and which might give rise to discussions which certainly ought to be avoided. With regard to the next
2034
Question, whether hostilities would be resumed on Monday next in the event of the Conference not terminating favourably on Wednesday next, I can only say how matters now stand. The suspension of hostilities expires, I think, on Sunday, and if there is no other agreement made before that time, if the belligerent parties should not have agreed to some arrangements calculated to restore peace, or should not happen to have come to any understanding as to boundaries, and the suspension should not be renewed, a state of hostilities will of course commence when the suspension expires. With regard to the third Question, I have to say that whenever the negotiations are over it will no doubt be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to lay the proceedings of the Conference before Parliament, and no delay that can be avoided will possibly take place. Probably a day or a couple of days may intervene before that can be done.
MR. BRIGHT: Perhaps the noble Viscount is not able to give the House an assurance at present that the armistice will be prolonged. I know it would be desirable to give all the information that could possibly be given, because it is obvious that there must be a great feeling of interest in the country on the subject. I do not credit hon. Gentlemen opposite with a greater desire for peace than Her Majesty's Government. But the country has a great interest in knowing what the Government may be able fairly to tell us. I have never asked a question on the subject before, nor do I now. But though there may be good guesses or bad guesses as to what a certain plenipotentiary has done, it is clearly not the duty of the Minister, however great the anxiety may be, to divulge facts, which as a Minister represented in tie Conference he is pledged to keep secret. But I think the noble Viscount would get on more easily if he should tell the House all he can, and I should be most happy if he should be able to tell us anything tending to show that peace is likely to come from the negotiations which have been carried on now for some weeks past
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is, no doubt, a great anxiety in the country for the continued preservation of peace, and I am quite aware that this House must feel a strong desire to know everything that can be properly communicated with regard to the negotiations. I very much regret that my tongue is tied, and

2035
therefore I can only repeat the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are labouring incessantly to bring the belligerent parties to an agreement, and if we fail to accomplish that end, I trust that we shall be able to show that it was not our fault.

INDIA—THE LATE MARQUESS OF DALHOUSIE.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to Solicit the permission of the House to ask a Question with respect to a statement which was made by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) in the debate on the previous Monday evening. He would not for a moment ask the indulgence of the House in transgressing the rule which prohibited reference to a past debate, were it not that the statement to which he referred affected deeply the character of a public man. His hon. Friend stated, as reported in The Times, that the Marquess of Dalhousie a short time before quitting India, in the plenitude of his power, and with all the arrogance of office, told a Native Prince that he regarded him no more than the dust beneath his feet. That Prince was the Nizam. That statement, when made, surprised him (Sir James Fergusson), and he thought it right to ascertain at the India Office whether it was well founded or not. He had to thank the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood) for having granted him every facility; As far as the knowledge of any of the persons at the India Office went, no such expression occurred in any of the documents at the office, and a few of those who were confidentially acquainted with the late Marquess, told him that to the best of their knowledge no such thing had taken place. Having thus taken all the trouble he could to ascertain the facts, and as the members of the late Marquess's family felt pained at the allegation, he wrote to his hon. Friend to ask whether he had any authority for such a statement, and whether he could mention where such a sentence had occurred? His hon. Friend was unable to mention his authority, but said he would try to discover it. It would be most agreeable to him if his hon. Friend would state that he had not intended to say that the words were written or spoken by the Marquess of Dalhousie; but since his hon. Friend was not prepared to take that course, he begged to ask upon what authority he attributed the words to the Marquess of Dalhousie?
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, when his hon. and gallant Friend spoke to him shortly after the debate, he (Mr. Baillie) told him that he had read the statement, though he could not for the moment say where it was to be found, but he would look for it. He had now to refer his hon. and gallant Friend in the first place to a very able article upon Indian affairs, which appeared in the July number of the Quarterly Review of 1858. The words which he used in the House would be found at page 265. Those words were published in the Quarterly Review during the time the Marquess of Dalhousie was alive, and, as far as he knew, had never been contradicted. In the next place he would refer his hon. and gallant Friend to a more learned work which had been lately published by Mr. Dickinson, a gentleman well versed in Indian affairs—a Very interesting book upon the annexation of the principality of Dhar—and at page 27 he would find the statement repeated, and said to be on the very highest authority. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: What authority?] It was stated to be on the very highest authority. The hon. and gallant Officer, no doubt, would find the statement in a despatch in the archives of Hyderabad.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, Whether as a Member of Parliament, and one who had held a position connected with the Board of Control, he felt justified in making the statement with no other authority.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he conceived that when such a statement appeared in a publication like the Quarterly Review, and remained uncontradicted for six years, a Member of Parliament was justified in quoting it as authentic.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES, &c. BILL.

  [BILL 114.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That he Bill be now read the third time." — (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer).
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he rose to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the successful result which had attended the consideration of the Bill in the Select Committee, to which he had consented to refer it. As originally brought in, the Bill consisted of

  2037
  three clauses, and it had come out of the Select Committee consisting of seventeen clauses, sixteen of which, together with the preamble and title, were entirely new. He would also congratulate the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertford for having suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; and the course of proceeding pursued in that Committee showed that there was no intention on the part of any of the Members to prevent the passing of the measure or to do it any sort of damage. Before the Bill was sent to a Select Committee he had made some objections to it, and as they had now been removed, he wished briefly to advert to some of the points in respect to which the Bill had been amended. One of the objections he had taken was that the Government were proceeding in a course likely to interfere with private enterprize — that was to say, with Insurance Offices; but that objection was quite removed by the introduction of words limiting any contract for payment to be made on the death of a person to an amount not greater than £100. He had expressed an apprehension that the Bill ran the risk of interfering, not with the larger and profitable concerns, but with what he cared for more—namely, those establishments which the working men got up and managed for their own purposes. That objection had also been removed by the enactment that no contracts for payment to be made on the death of a person should be of a less amount than £20. Another important restriction was introduced into the Bill, and it was that which provided that the tables on which the payments of a sum on death were to be calculated should be based on a 3 per cent rate. In that way all fear of unfair competition, which might have been surmised as possible to be carried on under the first Bill, had been entirely removed. He had on a former occasion stated that if by experience it should be found that the tables were not accurately prepared, a loss might be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, but his objections on that head had been very much removed by the statements which he heard in the Select Committee from the able civil servants of the Government. He thought that the Bill in its present shape was a good Bill, and no one more desired to see it passed than he did. If a master or employer wished to make a provision by way of annuity for a faithful servant in
  2038
  his old age, he could do so with perfect security under the Bill, and without incurring any such risk as the breaking up of an Insurance Office. The Bill would also be of use to the great mass of labourers in this country. It would be in the power of a young workman about to marry, and it would be his duty, to make provision for his wife and family by taking advantage of the provisions of the Bill. He thought that if the working people of this country did not derive great advantage from the measure it would be their own fault.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, because at one period it was doubtful whether the present admirable measure would pass. He thought it would prove a most useful Act, as it gave to the working classes such a security as they were entitled to. The country at large would be benefited by the reduction of the poor's rate, while the poor being relieved from the hardship of being thrown on the bounty of others would be advanced in the social scale.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he should not have taken up so much of the time of the House in an earlier stage of the Bill had he not felt convinced that it was unfitted to carry out the object which the framer had in view. In its present shape he believed that object would be effected; and he trusted that it would confer great benefits on the country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was opposed to the principle. That was not so. His objection was only as to the form of the measure, which he believed had been rendered unobjectionable by the examination which it had undergone. His right hon. Friend had shown great patience and courtesy in his conduct of the measure throughout, and he considered the House and the country had every reason to thank him. He wished, however, to ask him, Whether a person who paid money into a savings bank on account of life insurance would be considered as a depositor in a savings bank so as to bring him within the provisions of the Savings Bank Act, which prohibited a person from having two accounts at the savings bank?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that when the Bill was formerly under the consideration of the House a great sensation was created throughout the country, because the working classes believed it would come into

  2039
  collision with Benefit Societies. The result of the labours of the Committee was that no such collision of interests, and no such opposition, would arise between the Bill and Benefit Societies; but in order to obviate all doubt upon the point, the Committee had agreed to introduce a clause providing that insurances under the provisions of the Bill should not be effected for a less sum than £20, the result of which would be that Trade and Benefit Societies would not be affected by the measure. There being thus a distinct declaration on the part of the Legislature, that it was not intended to supersede Benefit and Trade Societies, it necessarily followed that the Government were bound to direct their attention to the condition of these institutions, with the view of correcting any evils and abuses to which they might be subject. It was not right that there should be any ground for the belief that the 20,000 Benefit Societies in the country were so constituted as, in any degree, to leave the door open for fraud and reckless mismanagement. Legislation on the subject was the more necessary as no substitute could be found for those societies, the chief mission of which was to provide for contingencies much nearer to the present life of the working man than those contemplated in the present measure. Philanthropic Members might perhaps imagine that the thoughts of the labouring man were directed to a time twenty or thirty years hence, when he would be old, or perhaps dead; but the truth was, that he was too much engrossed in the struggling life of today to exercise such foresight. He was obliged to consider chiefly how to provide against sickness or any of the other casualties to which he was liable. Another contingency was the burial of his children, for which purpose he had to subscribe to a burial fund. These various arrangements were built one on another, and all came within the scope of the Benefit and Trade Societies—the difference between which was that the latter offered aid in the event of the loss of employment, as well as of sickness or any other accident. In that way the taxpayers were relieved from many claims which would otherwise be made on them in the shape of poor rates, and from every point of view Benefit and Trade Societies deserved the serious and anxious consideration of the Government and of Parliament. He therefore hoped that the
  2040
  Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think he had done enough in bringing forward the scheme before the House, and that legislation in regard to these societies, as in regard to savings banks, would not be left to the enterprize of a private Member. The responsibility of dealing with the subject rested on the Government; and in his opinion they were bound to bring forward a complete and salutary measure so as to afford all the relief that legislation could give. There was some alarm on the part of persons connected with savings banks lest an insurance was to be treated as a deposit account and held to preclude any other deposit account in another savings bank. It was certainly not the intention of the Committee that such should be the case, and he should be glad to learn what construction the Chancellor of the Exchequer put on the provision.
  MR. VANCEobserved, that he had received complaints from some of his constituents of the hardship it was to many persons in humble life who had invested money in the National Debt Office in order to secure small annuities, that payments were made only in London, thus involving considerable expense for agency and stamps in the case of persons who lived in other parts of the kingdom. He hoped the Government would consider whether they could not do anything to remedy that inconvenience, by authorizing the annuities to be paid in Edinburgh and Dublin as well as London.
  MR. GREGSONexpressed his general approbation of the measure, which had undergone considerable improvement in Committee.
  MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he believed the operation of the measure would be beneficial. There could be no doubt that in too many cases the funds of existing Benefit Societies were misapplied to feasting and entertainments; and he hoped the Registrar would carry out his intention of disallowing such expenses. As to the deferred annuities, he knew, from experience in his own parish, that they were scarcely understood by the labouring classes. In his parish an office had been open for the sale of deferred annuities for five years, and during that period there had not been a single applicant. The measure would be most serviceable to the mechanics in the towns, but he trusted that in time its advantages would be extended to the population in rural districts.
  MR. CAVEsaid, the Bill was valuable us far as it went, but he could corroborate what had been stated as to the absolute necessity for regulating the Benefit Societies in a more effectual manner. These societies were of even more importance than any system of deferred annuities to the ordinary day-labourer, who, at the present rate of wages, could do little more than provide against sickness and other contingencies of to-day, without thinking of the future. He did not suppose, therefore, that many members of this body would avail themselves of the Government annuities, which would, however, be of value to other classes. He thought it was the duty of the Government, with the least possible delay, to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Benefit Societies. The existing law was quite inoperative, and was also extremely unpopular. Working men sometimes boasted that it was easy to drive a coach and six through any of Mr. Tidd Pratt's regulations, and besides they resented the interference of the Registrar as an infringement of their liberty of action. He lately became acquainted with a society, one of the rules of which was that one-eighth of the subscriptions should be spent in drink. If any one would carry out this calculation in reference to the investment of large sums he would see the monstrous absurdity of these regulations. In a police report the other day the case of a man was brought forward who had been expelled in consequence of being sick too often. The magistrate ordered him to be restored, but the managers pleaded that there was nothing in the box, but promised that when there was anything he should partake of it. The society had been ruined in consequence of so many of the members coming upon the sick fund. It was sad to see any man who had worked hard all his life brought to the close of it with no better prospect than the workouse, but it was sadder still to see a man who by prudence and saving had put by a provision for age and sickness, deprived of it through the faults of others. These were matters which demanded serious attention.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I shall commence the few remarks I have to make by answering one or two by-questions which have been put to me in the course of this conversation. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) has heard complaints from some of his constituents that annuities purchased in the
  2042
  National Debt Office are payable only in London. There are two systems at present in operation. One is the sale of annuities in the National Debt Office in London—in those cases the dividends are payable here; the other is the purchase of annuities through savings banks—in that case the dividends are payable where the annuities have been purchased. As far as this Bill goes, it will spread the sale of annuities all over the country, and the dividends will be payable wherever the annuities are sold. If the hon. Member wishes to know whether an annuity can be transferred from the National Debt Office after it has once been purchased there, I am sorry to say that at this moment I am unable to give him the requisite information, because I am not aware the question has ever been raised; but if he will kindly furnish me with the circumstances of any given case, I shall be glad to recur to the subject on a future occasion.
  A question has been put to me by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) and others to the effect, whether a person who may become an assurer of life under this Bill, and who, on that account, will be entitled by law to be subjected to the Savings Banks Acts, will not bring himself under the operation of the disability imposed by those Acts, forbidding any person holding two accounts at the same time. Now I have great satisfaction in stating that the words used in this Bill are mere repetitions of the words which have been in force ever since the system of public annuities was first introduced, dating as far back as 1833. Public annuities have since been purchasable through savings banks, with the condition that the Savings Banks Acts should be applicable to them, and consequently liable to the force of the objection, whatever that may be, with respect to the opening of two accounts. After an experience extending over thirty years, I may say confidently that there is no legal difficulty in the matter, and that a man who purchases an annuity, or makes a Life Assurance, will not be understood as opening an account in the sense of a savings bank deposit.
  With respect to this Bill as a whole, it is, of course, a matter of great satisfaction to me that as it entered this House in peace and quietness, so it is likely to quit it with general expressions of good-will. I am glad the right hon. Member for Wilts (Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt) has thought it right to

  2043
  raise a special discussion upon the third reading, because it gives me an opportunity of doing that which it is both a pleasure and a duty for me to do; and that is frankly to tender my best acknowledgments to all the Members of the Select Committee, without any exception or distinction—between those who had originally favoured and those who had originally objected to my proposal—for the very valuable assistance they have given in maturing and developing this measure. When the Bill was first introduced into the House it contained little more than the recognition of a general principle, together with a maximum limit of amount, and our intention was to provide by regulations all the subsidiary particulars which would be necessary in order to constitute a working scheme; but the discussions which took place upon the Bill led me to put on the notice-paper a number of clauses, and, very naturally, after the subject had attracted so much attention from Parliament, there was a disposition to embody in the Bill various points of regulation and management. The result is that there will be greater confidence felt in the working of the measure by those who may place themselves under its operation; and not only so, but the members of the Select Committee, by their advice and suggestions, have rendered valuable assistance towards the formation of a useful set of rules. As respects the unanimity of the Committee, I may mention that the principal, if not the only difference of opinion we had related to a question of great interest and importance both in itself and viewed as a mere legal problem—the question whether those assurances which are to be effected under this Bill should be a property transferable at law? The Committee decided by a majority that they should be transferable, and I confess I am well satisfied with that decision, and, indeed, I might have had some difficulty in acquiescing in the contrary view. If a proof were wanting, after the animation of the debates which took place upon the Bill in its earlier stages, of the undisturbed impartiality of the minds of those who set about the consideration of the clauses in Committee upstairs, I could not give a stronger or more conclusive one than the fact that in the division which occurred upon this subject nearly all those who supported my view of the clause as it stands were the original objectors to the Bill, and the most prominent among the opponents of the clause were hon. Gentlemen who had from
  2044
  the first been favourable to the principle of the measure. I am inclined to think that a greater proof of judicial impartiality could hardly be conceived.
  The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets raises an important question when he says that this Bill will leave a large province still open to and still occupied by institutions independent of the Government. Of that I have no doubt whatever. I have no doubt that the competition of the Government will be highly useful to existing societies. I believe, too, that the operation of this measure will tend rather to extend the total area of provident arrangements of this kind than to diminish the actual space now occupied by voluntary institutions. But the hon. and learned Member truly says that there is a case for legislation with regard to the present constitution of Benefit and Friendly Societies; he hopes I shall not, on the part of the Government, shrink from the responsibility of that legislation; and he regrets that in the case of savings banks it was left to the hon. Member for Evesham and himself to introduce a measure of reform. I do net wish to avoid responsibility, either on my own part or on the part of the Government, and here I may speak the more freely because I do not know that general legislation on the subject of Benefit and Friendly Societies, if it fell to the share of the Government, would be so appropriately lodged in the hands of a Finance Minister as in those of the heads of several other Departments of the Executive; but I may be permitted to point out that there are certain subjects upon which independent Members, well qualified for the task are much more efficient legislators than the Government. There are certain Subjects upon which an independent Member who is known to feel nothing but a benevolent interest in the question, and who by his experience, by his general ability, and by his station has acquired public confidence, can do a great deal more than can be done by a Minister, because he is free from that suspicion and jealousy which naturally — nay more, which very properly—attends upon and watches all steps taken by the Government. I have no doubt that if the right hon. Member for Wilts had not been at the moment withdrawn from us by indisposition he would have been in a condition to exemplify in regard to savings banks that which I have now stated; but at any rate it was exemplified by the hon. Mem-

  2045
  ber for Evesham and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets when they introduced and carried their Bill. No doubt the course was cleared for them by our legislation with respect to Post Office savings banks. That legislation produced a willingness on the part of the older institutions to be handled and manipulated afresh by the Legislature, which was greater than they had shown on former occasions; but I do not believe it would have been in my power to do that which was done by the hon. Member for Evesham and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets with such slender assistance, or at least goodwill, as I was able to give them, in the passing of their valuable, though necessarily stringent, measure for rectifying the constitution and governing the proceedings of the old savings banks. What I will venture to say is this—I think we must see the plan embodied in this Bill in operation before we can have so much additional light thrown upon the subject as will enable us to judge whether new legislation ought to be applied to existing Friendly and Benefit Societies. That this Bill will lead to that legislation I entertain little doubt, but I think we must see it fairly at work before dealing with so important a subject. I hope that during these discussions I have not at any time appeared to question the motives or intentions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertford (Sir Minto Farquhar), and that, however sharply we may be opposed upon this, that, or the other question, no word will ever fall from me inconsistent with the warmest personal regard or with the most implicit confidence in every statement he makes in this House. On this occasion I am glad to be able to render special thanks to him and to the right hon. Member for Wilts, and to say that I can very well both accept and return their congratulations, because I feel that, though starting with different points of view, we have laboured cordially together to perfect a measure of no little importance. Nor can I sit down without saying that another Member of this House who did not serve upon the Committee, because he was unwilling to interfere with others, deserves the warmest thanks from me for the part he has taken in promoting this Bill. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) is very well known as one of the most active philanthropists of the age: it is to him in a great degree that I owe the suggestions which led to the in-
  2046
  troduction of this Bill, and I beg to return him my best acknowledgments.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3o and passed.

GAOLS BILL— [BILL 93.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I wish, Sir, to make a short statement to the House of the general purport and objects of this Bill. The Bill is founded, in a great measure, on the Report of a Select Committee appointed by the other House of Parliament in the course of last Session, to consider and report upon the present state of discipline in gaols and houses of correction. That Committee stated at the outset of their Report—and no one can dispute their statement — that many and wide differences exist as regards construction, labour, diet, and general discipline in the various gaols and houses of correction in England and Wales; and the opinion of the Committee, as distinctly expressed in the second paragraph of their Report, was that it is desirable to establish without delay a system approaching as nearly as may be practicable to an uniformity of labour, diet, and treatment. Now, in that general object, I must express my entire assent, but I believe it is impossible to obtain absolute uniformity in these respects unless you subvert the existing system of local administration, which I, for one, should be sorry to see superseded in regard to borough and county prisons. If you are to retain the management of those gaols in the hands of local gentlemen not all agreeing in their views, but acting in accordance with certain general rules, with a certain margin for the exercise of their own opinion, you must be prepared to sacrifice something of that absolute uniformity which it may be desirable to attain. For instance, we should all doubtless be glad to see established a system of uniformity in respect to the punishments awarded to crimes of equal magnitude; but when you have your criminal law administered by fifteen Judges as well as by the Courts of Quarter Sessions and by Recorders, you must submit to some inequalities and anomalies, and some variety both in the punishments awarded and the mode in which they are carried into effect. At the same time it is desirable to do as much as you can, consistently with maintaining the present system

  2047
  of administration, to promote such a general uniformity in the labour, diet, and treatment of our gaols as the Lords Committee suggest. But with all respect for that Committee, I think that in stating the want of uniformity which exists, they overlook much of the progress made within, the last few years towards the attainment of uniformity. I hold in my hand; the copy of an official letter of the Inspectors of Prisons, which is contained in the, papers before the House; and in that document they state—
  "It was no doubt one of the objects the Lords' Committee of 1835 had in view in advising the appointment of official Inspectors, to secure a general uniformity of discipline; and it is equally true that that object has not been attained to the fullest extent; but this partial failure of the views of the Lords' Committee has not been occasioned by any want of activity on the part of the Inspectors, but if is owing to the tardiness of the local authorities in adopting the recommendations made by them. The want of improvement; however, and the absence of uniformity of practice are not so great as might be inferred from the terms of the Report; on the contrary, the recommendations of the Inspectors have been acted upon in a great majority of instandes—witness the extensive adoption of separate confinement, which has been in a great measure brought about by their urgent and repeated representations. In the last twenty years the number of prisons in which the separate system has been either wholly or partially adopted has increased from two to seventy-nine in England, and in Scotland it has been more or less introduced into sixty-one prisons; and while the number of cells certified for the separate confinement of prisoners under the provisions of the 2 & 3 Vict., c. 56, has increased from 200 to 14,959 in England, 2,158 cells have also been certified as fit to be used for this form of discipline in Scotland. Further, there are in course of construction in the county prisons at Preston, Kirkdale, Cold-bath Fields, Lancaster, Salford, and Stafford, nearly 2,000 more cells on the improved principle. These facts show that there has been a progressive improvement in the structure as well as in the discipline of prisons in Great Britain, which is still going on, and which is due more or less to the recommendation of the Inspectors."
  I have thought it right to call the attention of the House to that statement, because it shows that at present, without any change in the law, great improvements are going on as to the attainment of uniformity in the construction of prisons, and in thereby rendering them capable of applying uniform punishment to the prisoners confined within them. But I fully admit that more may be done for the same object; and it is with that view, and in accordance with the suggestions, as well as with the general spirit, of the Lords' Committee of last Session that this Bill has been framed.
  2048
  I will deal with the subject very much in the order in which it is treated by that Committee. I take first the question of hard labour. The Committee say, and say truly, that great variety exists in the mode of enforcing hard labour in different prisons; and they observe that in one or more prisons, the means of putting prisoners to hard labour does not exist, and that although particular prisoners have been sentenced to undergo that punishment, the opinion of the magistrates has been that separate confinement was of itself sufficient for, them, and they have practically disregarded the law. Having touched on the differences which exist in the mode of enforcing hard labour, the Lords' Committee come to their own recommendation on the subject, to which I invite the attention of the House, for it bears directly on the point raised by the Resolution of which the right hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) has given notice—namely, as to the definition of hard labour. In their Report the Committee say—
  "The first step towards a better and more uniform system throughput the country would, in the opinion of the Committee, be found in an authoritative definition by Act of Parliament of the term of hard labour. Nor does there seem to be in this any practical difficulty. Of the various forms which are in force in the several prisons, the treadwheel, crank, and shot drill alone appear to the, Committee properly to merit this designation of hard labour. Of these, the tread wheel and the crank form the principal elements of penal discipline, and might safely be described as such in any future Act of Parliament."
  And in a subsequent part of their Report they say—
  "They further recommend that all gaols and houses of correction shall, as a condition to their receipt of the Treasury allowance, both be provided with a sufficient supply of hard labour machinery for the average number of male prisoners sentenced to and medically fit for hard labour, and be annually certified to the Secretary of State as giving the full daily minimum work on treadwheel or crank, as described above."
  I have had to consider these recommendations of the Committee. They first of all propose that there shall be an authoritative definition of hard labour, and they suggest that it should confined to three modes of enforcing it, the treadwheel, the crank and shot drill; and they further recommend that, as a condition to their receipt of the Treasury allowance, all gaols and houses of correction shall be required to possess an adequate hard labour machinery, and be annually certified to the Secretary of State as duly enforcing this form of pun-

  2049
  ishment. I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to adopt the first part of these recommendations, and enact an authoritative definition of the term "hard labour," but that it would be expedient to adopt the other part—namely, that proper means should be taken to ascertain that hard labour can be and is practically enforced in gaols and houses of correction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, as I have mentioned, has placed on the paper the notice of a Resolution on this subject, and I may here say that, differing as he does with the conclusion to which I have come, and thinking that there should be this Parliamentary authoritative definition of hard labour, if he wilt in Committee on this Bill propose a clause giving effect to his view, I shall be happy to give it a candid consideration, trusting it may be found sufficient to answer its purpose. But the Committee of the House of Lords appear to have overlooked the difficulties connected with the application of their rule as to hard labour, and if the right hon. Gentleman concurs with that Committee, I would ask him, "Does he think that either the three forms of hard labour included in their definition could be strictly enforced upon women?" It is easy to say that the crank, for example, shall be the hard labour which Parliament requires; but the Committee say that the construction of the treadwheel and the crank differs so much in different gaols that they may be either made instruments of excessive punishment, or of punishment too light to be entitled to the name of hard labour. In page 4 of the Report the right hon. Gentleman will find what they say with regard to the crank, showing that it is a most unequal instrument of punishment. It is impossible for Parliament to define what the pressure on the axis of the crank shall be, or how it shall be applied, or what time a prisoner shall be kept at it. And if that be so, you must, as at present, give the local authorities a large discretion as to these points. I have, therefore, thought it better to leave it to the justices of the several prisons to devise those means of enforcing hard labour which, owing to the construction of their particular prisons, they may think are the only or the most available means of doing so, and then to leave it to the Secretary of State to see whether there has been such a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law as would warrant the payment of the Treasury allowance. I propose in
  2050
  this Bill to establish the same check upon the arbitrary exercise of the discretion vested in the Secretary of State which now exists in the case of the Constabulary Act, and to require that when the certificate is withheld the correspondence on the subject shall be laid before Parliament, that Parliament may have an opportunity of deciding whether that discretion has been satisfactorily exercised or not. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, excuse me for seeming to anticipate his Motion; but I repeat, that if, instead of proposing by a vague general resolution to impose on me a duty which I am unable satisfactorily to perform, he will submit a clause in Committee defining hard labour which can be safely and properly applied, I shall be happy to give it the best consideration.
  The next clause has reference to the power of the Secretary of State to make rules for the government of gaols. It was objected to by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire, and I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining it, because a most unaccountable misunderstanding appears to prevail on the subject. It has been supposed that it gives some extraordinary powers which were never acted upon before. Now, let me call the attention of the House to what the present law on the subject is. By the present law certain general rules have been enacted for the government of gaols, but the Legislature, thinking it absolutely essential that in addition to these stereotyped rules there should exist some means of making supplementary rules applicable to prisons generally or to particular prisons, gave a power to justices to make rules, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Now, just compare the present state of the law with what is proposed under this clause. By the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 28, s. 5, it is enacted—
  "That on or before the 1st day of November in every year the clerks of the peace for every county, riding, or division of a county in England and Wales, the clerks of every gaol sessions, and the chief magistrates of every city, town, borough, port, or liberty within England and Wales, now having any prison, shall transmit copies of all rules and regulations in force on the 25th day of September in such year for the government of every prison for and belonging to their respective counties, ridings, or divisions of counties, cities, towns, boroughs, ports, and liberties, to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, together with copies of such new or additional rules and regulations as may be proposed for the government thereof; and it shall be lawful for

  2051
  such Secretary of State to alter such rules or regulations, copies whereof shall be transmitted to him in pursuance of this Act, and to make additional rules or regulations thereto, and to subscribe a certificate or declaration that such rules and regulations as are transmitted to him, or altered or added to, are proper to be enforced, and the rules and regulations, alteration, and additions so certified shall be binding upon sheriffs and all other persons; and the clerks of the peace for every county, riding, or division of a county in England and Wales, the clerks of every gaol session, and the chief magistrates of every such city, town, borough, port, and liberty, are hereby required to lay before the Court of Quarter Sessions, held next after the 25th day of September in every year, for their respective counties, ridings, divisions of counties, cities, towns, boroughs, ports and liberties, on the 1st day of such Sessions, like copies of all rules and regulations in force on the 25th day of September in every year for the government of their respective prisons."
  That shows that it is in the power of the Secretary of State now, if he chooses, to alter the rules and regulations transmitted to him in pursuance of this Act, and to make additional rules, regulations, alterations, and additions which should be binding, &c. The word "annul" does not occur, although I do not know why it does not; but the word is really immaterial. This is not all, however. By another clause it is enacted—
  "That in case of any clerk of the peace, clerk of gaol sessions, or chief magistrate of any city, town, borough, port or liberty, neglecting or omitting to transmit to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State copies of the rules or regulations in force for the government of any prison which he is required by this Act to transmit, it shall be lawful for one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State after the 1st day of December in every year, to certify what rules and regulations he deems necessary for the government of such prison; and the rules and regulations so certified by such Secretary of State shall thence forth be binding upon sheriffs and all other persons, and shall be the only rules in force for the government of such prison."
  Now, what is the effect of this clause? That the Secretary of State has power to alter, annul, or add to all rules and regulations for the government of goals, not only when they have been sent up to him, but where such rules and regulations have not been transmitted to him, he has power absolutely, after the 1st of December in every year, to make rules which shall be binding without appeal on the authorities of the gaols. Now the simple effect of this clause is to enable the Secretary of State to do at any time what at present under the existing law he is now empowered to do between the 25th of September and the 1st of December in
  2052
  every year. I am therefore utterly unable to account for the petitions that have been presented against this clause of the Bill. They came chiefly from some very zealous persons who think they have discovered some hidden motive on my part under this clause of subverting the Protestant religion, and imposing on every prison in England the services of a Roman Catholic chaplain. These petitions came from the Protestant Reformation Society and similar institutions, and they express in very explicit terms that it is intended by this means to deprive the authorities of the prisons of the discretion vested in them by the Ministers Act of last Session to make rules incompatible with that Act. If those who signed these petitions were more conversant with our system of legislation they would know that no rules which the Secretary of State could make would supersede an Act of Parliament. But this only shows, when an idea once gets hold of very honest but ill-informed minds, how difficult it is to eradicate it. I will only add that, if I find after we go into Committee the explanation I have now offered is not entirely satisfactory, I shall have no objection to strike out the clause altogether — so little importance do I attach to it. The Committee further recommended that all rules should be included in one Act of Parliament, but I do not think that necessary or practicable, although I quite admit that it would be desirable some additional rules should be inserted in the Bill.
  I come now to that part of the Bill which relates to the construction of prisons. Here again, I wish to advert to the Report of the Committee. With regard to separation, the Committee say—
  "They have observed from the evidence submitted to them that in many of the best gaols a large proportion of the cells are below the precise standard of size, and consequently uncertified by the Inspector. Such cells, however, appear to be used under certain conditions, without prejudice to the administration of the prison or the health of the prisoners. While, for the future, the fullest development is given to the separate system, it will be for the Secretary of State to consider how far the practical object in view may be met, and the difficulties arising out of the expense of a reconstruction of many prisons obviated, by allowing a certain proportion of cells below the average standard to be certified and sanctioned, it being understood that the occupants of those cells shall consist of prisoners undergoing short sentences, who shall be chiefly employed during the day upon hard labour outside their cells."
  The sixth clause of the Bill gives effect to that recommendation—that cells may

  2053
  be certified for short periods of separate confinement. That will, no doubt, enable the system of separate imprisonment to be adopted in many prisons where it could not otherwise be so, owing to the cells not being large enough. The Committee go on to recommend—
  "That legislative measures be taken as speedily as possible to render the adoption of separation obligatory upon all gaols and houses of correction in England and Wales, and that the payment of the proportion of the charge now issued from the public revenues in aid of the county and borough prisons be made contingent in each case on the adoption of the separate system."
  The fifth clause of the Bill gives effect to that recommendation. We can only effect the object which the Committee of the Lords had in view by requiring that the prisons should be so constructed as to be adapted to separate imprisonment; and the way in which we propose to do this is to enable the Secretary of State to require the authorities of any inadequate prison to remedy the defects, in order that the prison may be made capable of enforcing the discipline which it is desirable should be enforced; and on failure of the authority to whom such order may be addressed to comply with its requisitions, the Secretary of State may, by a further order addressed to the keeper of said gaol, desire him to remove the prisoners to any other gaol the authority of which may consent to receive them, and; may make any equitable agreement on behalf of the authority of the inadequate gaol with the consenting authority for the lodging and maintenance of the prisoners so transferred.
  The Committee further recommended as amalgamation of small gaols with the larger prisons, in order to secure greater economy and efficiency of administration. It is no doubt desirable to give effect to that recommendation after due inquiry into the special circumstance of each case, and accordingly a number of small borough gaols have been scheduled in this Bill for abolition. Many small buildings in some town are, I believe, quite unfit for the reception of prisoners except for very short periods, and the Inspectors are quite agreed as to the propriety of that recommendation of the Committee. I applied to the Inspectors to report as to the prisons which they thought could be so dealt with, and they have furnished me with a list of prisons which I have included in the schedule for abolition. I may say, however, that since then I have received
  2054
  representations from various local authorities which are well entitled to consideration, and in some cases those representations have been accompanied by promises that the prisons should undergo the necessary alterations. These representations have been referred to the Inspectors. As to the particular gaols which shall be thus dealt with, that is a question which we can dispose of in Committee, when the House will have fuller information before it.
  The only remaining question to which the Lords' Committee directed their attention was one of great importance, namely, diet. Upon that point they made no recommendation beyond suggesting that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject, and laying down the general principles in which all of us will agree, that the dietary of prisoners, while it should be such as not to injure health, should not be of a nature to contrast favourably with, the ordinary diet of a labourer outside the prison. The House will see, from the papers before them, that a Committee of medical men was appointed, which made a Report proposing a new scale of dietaries with a maximum and a minimum. A copy of that Report was sent to each clerk of the peace and to other officers, in order that it might be brought under the notice of the local authorities, with a view to the adoption of the dietary suggested. Therefore, the question of diet forms no part of this Bill. There is only one other point, and that a minor one, to which I need refer. That is the questions as to the abolition of Abington Gaol, which was recommended by the Court of Quarter Sessions. I have, however, ascertained that considerable difference of opinion exists upon that subject; and as it is a purely local question, it cannot well be decided without further information being afforded to the House. I have inserted that gaol in the Bill, but when we go into Committee I shall be guided by what shall appear to be the feeling of the county of Berks; and if good reasons be assigned for the retention of the gaol, I shall not object. Having thus briefly referred to all the points connected with this Bill upon which I think it is necessary at present to touch, I venture to hope that the House will now read it a second time, and that, after the explanation I have given, the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) will not press his Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he should not think it necessary to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, but he felt there was still an important point at issue between them. The right hon. Baronet proposed to confer upon the Secretary of State powers which he (Mr. Adderley) thought ought to be defined by Act of Parliament. There would be no difference of opinion on the title of the right hon. Baronet certainly to the thanks of the House for introducing the Bill, because some reform in prison discipline had become absolutely necessary, and was the more imperative now that they had been dealing with the higher branches of the secondary penal code. It would be monstrous to reform the system of penal servitude while prison discipline, which formed the base of the system, was left untouched. As the right hon. Gentleman had said—one great object of reforming the law relating to prison discipline was to arrive at something like an uniform system. Such was the object of the Acts of George IV. and William IV. So again the object of the Lords' Committee was, in the first place to make imprisonment more feared; and next, to make the system uniform. So important did he consider uniformity of system to be, that for himself he would prefer a worse system that was uniform to a better system which was of uncertain application throughout the country. The principal objection to the Bill was, that it did not provide sufficiently for insuring uniformity; and even the attempt that was made in it to gain that end was based upon a wrong principle, by leaving sentences to be carried out to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State instead of defining them by Act of Parliament. That was quite a new principle, which he believed would be productive of the worst species of centralization. Secretaries of State were changed, and they were not always men having the same views; besides which it was almost impossible for any Secretary of State to have sufficient knowledge of the circumstance of every case to enable him to judge accurately whether punishments were satisfactorily administered. But he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman against himself. The
  2056
  right hon. Baronet had from first to last told the House that he proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Lords' Committee. Early in the present Session the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) asked what steps would be taken in consequence of the Report of the Lords' Committee, and the Home Secretary then said that as far as the recommendations of the Committee could be carried out without an Act of Parliament, he had given instructions that they should be at once carried out, and that in respect of those matters which required legislation he was preparing a Bill, but should postpone its introduction until he received certain further information which might enable him to fulfil the Committee's requirements. But now it appeared that a Bill based upon the Report of the Lords' Committee would not in reality carry out any of their recommendations, except one of minor importance referring to the suppression of certain small borough prisons. The recommendations in respect of increased severity were few, but upon the point of uniformity the recommendations were numerous, precise, and important. The Committee wanted to obtain uniformity in the construction of prisons, in the punishment and treatment of prisoners, in the rules of the gaols, and in the classifications of prisoners. The Bill did not deal with these points. First, as to the construction of prisons, upon which the recommendations of the Committee were precise. The right hon. Baronet excused the Bill for doing nothing, and said they had not borne in mind how much had been done already in this respect. It was true that much had been done, but a long time had been occupied in doing it, and much remained to be done. The Act of Parliament for the erection of Pentonville Prison was passed twenty-two years ago. That prison was to be an experiment which, if successful, was to be followed out in all other places. The experiment had been successful, but it had not been followed out. If any good result had attended the introduction of the system the country generally had not reaped full advantage from it, for there were still no less than thirty of the most important gaols in England where it had not yet been introduced. At present the system was extending slowly, and what he and the Lords' Committee proposed was that its introduction should be expedited and

  2057
  rendered compulsory. That proposition was not a very violent one, because it could be effected at a small expense, and by no means necessitated a reconstruction of the present gaols, as some imagined. The House ought not to listen to local objections against the separate system, because the object was a national one. The system was not efficient unless made uniform. Any gaol of any size which refused to carry out the system was injuring the prison discipline find the beneficial effects of confinement throughout the country, because such a refusal would only tend to foster in the minds of criminals that speculation on uncertainty and that gambling in crime which tended to paralyze the power of all law. The next recommendation of the Commissioners was that the term "hard labour" should be defined in the Acts of Parliament. The desirability of such definition would hardly, he believed, be contested by any one. At present the term was so vague that it might mean anything on earth. Any person reading the evidence of the Committee would see at once that the value attached to the term depended upon the locality where the sentence was carried out. In one gaol it meant severe labour at the tread-wheel, the crank, or shot-drill; in another it was defined as school instruction and the employment of moral influence; while in the county of Berkshire a prisoner confined in the Reading Gaol would find that it signified no labour at all. Such a statement appeared to be almost incredible, but according to the evidence of Mr. Merry, nothing in the opinion of the magistrates of Berkshire was so irksome to a prisoner as confinement without employment; and, therefore, they construed hard labour to mean doing nothing at all. That state of things he did not believe the House could wish to continue. The right hon. Gentleman sought a remedy in the third clause of the Bill, which provided for the withholding of the whole of the Government allowance from any prison which had not received a certificate showing that adequate means were provided for carrying out sentences of hard labour, and that such sentences had been carried out in accordance with what the Secretary of State regarded as fulfilling the requirements of the law. If the angel Gabriel were Secretary of State, and his two Inspectors were Arguses, the clause could not be properly enforced. It would be impossible for the Inspectors to travel
  2058
  about the country with such rapidity and examine the prisons with so narrow a scrutiny as to render the clause effective, and a most arbitrary distribution of the certificates would necessarily be the result. But, independent of that objection, there still existed the uncertainty as to the nature of hard labour. The definition would be in the discretion of the Secretary of State, and his view of the question might coincide with that of the Reading magistrates, who believed entire idleness to be the hardest labour; or with that of the Winchester bench, who regarded the treadwheel as the most irksome employment that could be given to a prisoner. Nothing would lead to a uniformity of hard labour short of its definition by Act of Parliament. The Lords' Committee had proposed as a definition—the tread-wheel, crank, or shot-drill, and he would suggest the addition of the words "and such like labour," an addition which would give some discretion, limited, it was true, but sufficient for the purpose of uniformity. He was quite aware that magistrates held their own theories as to the nature of hard labour, but he felt certain that they would be willing to abandon to this extent their own individual schemes if by so doing they could procure a great advance in uniformity. Another great object of the Committee was to secure a general scale of diet. The regulations on the subject of dietary at present varied in the different prisons in a most extraordinary degree. In the single article of bread, for instance, the variation ranged from 30 ounces to 234 ounces—a variation which reduced the whole system to an absurdity. He believed that a maximum and a minimum scale of dietary should be introduced into the Bill, because uniformity of diet and uniformity of hard labour, to be effective, should go hand in hand. Hard labour of any kind was hard or light in some degree according to the diet on which it was performed. Now, with regard to the exceptions. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible to lay down the same dietary for men and for women. That was a difficulty which he did not believe would be felt insuperable by any one, nor would it be desirable to include invalids in the general scale. There must always be a double system for the two sexes of convicts, and the regulation of the diet of invalids must always be discretionary, and all subject, of course, in a measure to the report of the

  2059
  surgeon in every case. There was also, at present, an entire want of conformity to rules; and although the 5&6 Will. IV. prescribed that the rules should undergo the revision of the Secretary of State, in a considerable number of goals there were no rules at all, and some rules contained every possible absurdity that could come into the head of the wildest theorist. In his own county, Major Fulford, one of the highest authorities upon the subject, drew up certain rules, based on the commissioners' Report, which, with some slight modifications, would probably do for all the goals in the kingdom. The classification recommended by the Lords' Committee, and since carried out in Winchester Gaol, consisted in successive stages of treatment, through which every prisoner sentenced to a long term was to progress. In the existing Acts there is another kind of classification specified — namely, classes of prisoners, rendered needless by individual separation. The classification now recommended was one of treatment. If the prisoners were guilty of prison offences, they were to be degraded and thrown back into a worse stage, and the system of marks was avoided. The mark system was very arbitrary and unsatisfactory, and depended upon conduct which might be assumed by the worst hypocrite in the goal. Even the greatest amount of work was a bad ground for alleviation of punishment as it attached the highest privilege to the strongest villain. It was a system, too, in respect of which they had to depend on the reports of inferior officers, who should not be under temptation to make favorites, or who might want the courage and the judgment to make a true report, or the power to know really what report to make in every case. The Winchester system might be easily extended if only, magistrates were willing to give up pet theories for the sake of uniformity; and if uniformity in classification of treatment could be arrived at the rest would be comparatively easy. The right hon. Gentleman had held out such a prospect of an amicable discussion of these points in Committee, and had expressed such readiness to adopt suggestions, that he thought they might consent to the second reading, and having made these criticisms he should offer no further opposition upon the stage of the Bill.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, it was felt throughout the country that the existing law provided amply for contingencies, and that the enactment of the fourth clause
  2060
  might cover very serious mischief. If however, it was understood that the arbitrary power sought to be exercised by the right hon. Gentleman were not to be insisted on, however, he was not indisposed to go into Committee on Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATE*: I so thoroughly concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire in all the objections he has stated against this Bill that I regret he has withdrawn his Resolution, because I agree with him when he says—
  "That no legislation to amend the present law relating to goals can be satisfactory which does not include some definition of hard labour, and a schedule of rules for goals; and which does not provide that all gaols; shall be gradually adapted to the separate system, and for a uniform and classified treatment of all prisoners."
  But my objections to the Bill go far beyond those of my right hon. Friend; and I think the House must be of opinion, from the petitions which have been presented, that all the objections felt through the country to the Bill are not comprised in those which were stated in the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. I have myself to-day presented a petition from the bench of justices for Westminster and Middlesex, in which it is stated that the attempt made by this Bill entirely to supersede their discretion with regard to the rules for the regulation of the goals for which they are responsible is totally unprecedented. They say that it is altogether unprecedented that the Secretary of State or any other Officer of the Crown should be empowered to make contracts in the name of the justices, or that power so vast should be proposed by this Bill that he might do anything almost that may please him as to the enforcement of rules in reference to the goals; that he may declare any standard of adequacy, as it is called, necessary for his certificate of any goal, and thereby may entail an unknown amount of expense upon the ratepayers, using the justices as tools to levy this taxation without the slightest discretion on their part as to the amount to belevied or the mode in which the money when obtained is to be expended. And remember, Sir, this does not touch the country magistrates only. The country magistrates have the regulation of the gaols for the counties. They have power to frame regulations for the government of those gaols in accordance with the rules framed by themselves, which are submitted to the Secretary of state for his approval,

  2061
  It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that the Secretary of State may proceed to alter or add to these rules. That is the state of the existing law; but the right hon. Gentleman has never told the House that which appears most distinctly in the evidence of Mr. Perry, the Inspector of Prisons for the northern half of England — namely, that there is no effectual power to enforce the alterations of the Prison Rules made by, no power to enforce the rules that may be suggested by, the Secretary of State, if the bench of magistrates be opposed to them. And, what is more, there is no case which came to the memory of either of the Inspectors of Prisons for England—and there are two, Mr. Perry and Mr. Vowles —in which an attempt has been made by any Secretary of State to force, by legal process upon an unwilling bench, rules of his own construction, or alteration of their rules which he may have suggested. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State has consulted with different benches of magistrates, who have come to an agreement with him, and generally had the good sense to adopt his suggestions; but there is no power to compel them to adopt those suggestions. It is quite true that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to proceed by indictment, or by mandamus in the Court of Queen's Bench; but there is no proof of any Secretary of State having done so at any time. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that he is about to take no additional powers by the Bill, I reply that he seeks large additional powers. But he does more, he also seeks the power of enforcing by penalty, on the justices, an enormous expenditure to be levied upon their responsibility from the ratepayers. Why, Sir, this is a direct means of taxation on one class of property at the will of the Secretary of State; and it is this consideration which has induced the Justices of the Peace of Westminster and of Middlesex to petition this House that the Bill may not pass into a law. Sir, I have never known an instance of a measure which bears examination so badly as this. Many hon. Members came to me and said that the Bill contains no additional power. Well, I did not like to act on my own opinion alone; so I prepared a case and submitted the following questions, not to one, but to three gentleman learned in the law, and with the permission of the House— for I do not think I can show what is the real character of the Bill better
  2062
  —I will read the questions put to and the answers received from one of these gentleman—
  "Does not clause 2 make this Bill applicable to all gaols, except the thirty-one gaols specified in this Bill as to be discontinued, and the Government convict prisons?— Yes.
  "Whereas the whole discretion vested in the justices under the Prison Ministers' Act of last Session, 26&27 Vict, c. 79, must if exercised, be brought into operation by rules. With respect to the appointment of Roman Catholic or other Dissenting ministers, or Roman Catholic or other Dissenting ministers, or their being permitted to visit prisoners in gaol, would it not be competent to the Home Secretary, if this Bill becomes law, to make rules for the appointment of such ministers, or for permitting them to visit in any of, or all, the gaols to which this Bill is intended to apply?—Yes.
  "Would it not be competent to the Home Secretary, under Clause 5, to compel the construction of, or appropriation of, a Roman Catholic chapel in any goal now in existence or to be constructed, except the thirty-one gaols specified in this Bill, if he should think fit to declare such gaol inadequate without such chapel?—Yes.
  "Might not the Home Secretary remove all the Roman Catholic or Nonconformist prisoners from any goal in which there is not a chapel or a minister of their denomination appointed, to some gaol in which there is a chapel and a minister or ministers of their denomination appointed?—Yes. and make the county pay the expense of removal and maintenance."
  The right hon. Gentleman felt the weakness of his own case when he offered to give up the 4th clause of Bill. I beg the House however, to observe that that clause is merely declaratory, the penalties are contained in the remainder of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the whole of the powers which he proposes to take under this clause exist under the present law. The mere sweeping away of this declaratory clause would not remove the penalties or limit the discretionary power which the clause declares. But the right hon. Gentleman if this Bill were to pass, would be able to enforce the existing law by the penalties which the Bill would enact. I most heartily wish for some judiciously framed measure upon this subject. It is now twenty-two years since any code of rules was issued for the regulation of gaols, and those twenty-two years have been most eventful in the matter of secondary punishments. I am only repeating the testimony of the late lamented Sir Joshua Jebb, and the evidence of Mr. Perry and Mr. Vowles, when I state that a code of rules applicable to present circumstances such as were embodied in the Act of 1823 for the Regulation of Goals, should be comprised in a schedule appended to any Bill of this kind, for the

  2063
  purpose of producing some uniformity of punishment in the gaols throughout the kingdom which are under the control of the justices. But, Sir, I beg to call the attention of the House to the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Lords in this respect: the Lords' Committee have, in their Report, declared most emphatically that not only should rules be issued, but that rules should be enacted. I most cordially concur in the propriety of that recommendation. No hon. Member, I believe, will dispute the competency of the Lords' Committee. They state in page 14 of their Report on Prison Discipline—
  "1. It is obvious that to secure an efficient discipline every gaol must have a definite code of rules under which it is governed."
  It is, indeed, clear that this was the intention of the Legislature, the 5 & 6 Will. IV. contemplates the existence of certain regulations in every prison, and with that view a code of rules has been issued by the Secretary of State for the information and adoption of the local authorities. But as their acceptance is left to the discretion of the local authorities, a comparatively small number of gaols in England and Wales have adopted the rules as framed by the Secretary of State. In some prisons neither the rules as laid down by the Secretary of State, nor any other rules framed by the governing body, and approved by him, are in existence; and in the remaining gaols the regulations vary indefinitely according to the views of the governing body. It is, indeed, quite true that it is within the competency of the Secretary of State, under 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 38, s. 6, in default of the framing of the regulations by the local authorities, to certify such rules as he shall deem necessary for the government of any prison, which shall then become binding. It appears, however, that this power has never been exercised by the Secretary of State.
  "2. The Committee are of opinion that such rules for gaols as may be thought advisable should be embodied as a schedule in an Act of Parliament, and that the Treasury allowance should be withheld from all gaols where those rules are not in force."
  My complaint against this Bill, and it would be the complaint of the House of Lords, is that whereas they recommend that rules should be enacted by Parliament, this Bill contains no rules. Now, the advantage of having definite rules is this: that the rules at once instruct the
  2064
  magistrates and bind the Home Secretary. But this Bill gives the right hon. Gentleman the power of making rules without the slightest previous knowledge on the part of this House, the justices, or the public, of what those rules will be. The Bill would also confer upon him a most effectual power to enforce these unknown rules. Surely there remains in the House of Commons some respect for the old form of government, in accordance with which the local affairs of the counties, cities, and boroughs have hitherto been managed; some respect for those who give their time, sometimes most valuable time, for the accomplishment of this important object. All that the justices seek in proposing the rejection of this Bill is, that the House will define the width of the discretion, and the extent of the power to be exercised; that they may be instructed specifically how they are to improve the discipline of the gaols over which they preside. They ask for instructions, but they deprecate the arming of any central authority with the power of overriding their discretion to any extent, and of compelling them to become the instruments of a taxation which they justly term "unconstitutional" in its nature, because it is not defined by Parliament either in its amount or objects, and is to be levied directly at the instance of an Officer of the Crown. It is for these reasons that I have given notice that I should move the rejection of the Bill. Far be it from me to suggest a code of rules of so stringent and narrow a character that they would be applicable only to gaols built upon the Pentonville model. Sir Joshua Jebb, and the two prison Inspectors for England, declare that there ought to be several classes of rules, and that each class of rules should be applicable to a certain class of prisons. Thus a process would be established of obtaining uniformity by means not so arbitrary as a narrow definition, applicable only to one class of gaols, but enabling the justices to feel that they have the sanction of law in conforming to the rules which the information at the command of the House and the Government ought to enable them to frame for their guidance. The question under consideration is no trifling matter. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should change the law. So far as he is concerned, the House might have confidence in him personally whilst he is in office; but he asks us to arm all his successors, every Secre-

  2065
  tary of State, we know not whom, with an indefinite power of overriding the discretion of the justices in counties, cities, and boroughs, and compelling the county justices and the town councils to levy any amount of money that the Secretary of State for the time being may think proper, and to enforce contract not made in his own name and upon their responsibility. Is it surprising that there should be a feeling prevalent throughout the country that such indefinite powers as these ought not to be given? I think I have shown, then, that there is one class of objectors to the Bill whose objections, however lightly they may have been treated by the right hon. Gentleman, ought not to be overlooked by the House—I mean those of the local authorities, the county justices, the borough magistrates, and the town councils. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke lightly of another class of objectors. He said that there were certain persons who, upon religious grounds, object to the existing Prison Ministers Act. Sir, those persons object to that Act, not only upon religious grounds, but upon the grounds of policy. For, remember, Rome is not merely the centre of a religious, but of a political organization, and I would that hon. Members of the House would open their eyes to the extent of this influence. The strong Government of France is resisting the Ultramontane organization. It has ruined Poland, and our ancestors had to eject it from this country, or it might hare ruined us. The agents of this politico-religions organization are making it very fashionable in this country. If any one says there is danger in this quarter, he is told, "there is nothing so unfashionable," or, "that it is an antiquated prejudice to entertain such apprehensions; that it is delightful to witness such an organization spreading throughout the country for purely charitable purposes." We hear of bazaars taking place supported by persons of the greatest weight and influence in society, and of all sorts of exertions to strengthen this organization. I wish hon. Members would turn back a little to the history of their own country, and not shut their eyes to the effects of this organization, not only upon the religion, but upon the peace, the social happiness, and the freedom of the nations of the world. I was inclined to doubt whether I was not carried away by prejudice in thinking that this Bill might be used to contravene the discretion vested in the justices by the Prison Ministers Act of
  2066
  last Session with respect to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, and Roman Catholic priests being permitted to visit prisoners in the gaols of this country. But I am relieved from that apprehension when I find the Tablet, which is an Ultramontane paper, supporting the Bill, and that the Weekly Register, another Ultramontane paper, adopts the same course. If the House will permit me, I will read to it a few extracts from the Weekly Register of the 28th of May—
  "Sir George Grey's Prison Bill is threatened with fierce opposition. The Government, seeing the futility of expecting that the Protestant magistracy of the country will surrender their prejudices and voluntarily appoint Catholic chaplains to administer spiritual instruction to Catholic prisoners in the gaols under their jurisdiction, have availed themselves of a Bill which they found it necessary to bring into Parliament for the abolition, of certain prisons and the re-organization of others, to introduce a clause giving the Secretary of State power to order absolutely the appointment of Catholic chaplains in those prisons where the circumstances shall appear to him to warrant such a step."
  Now, this may be said to be only anonymous writing but as a magistrate for Middlesex and-for Westminster, I happened to know that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department has been urging the visiting magistrates of the gaols in Westminster and Middlesex to admit Roman Catholic priests to those gaols under the 3rd Section of the Prison Ministers Act, and to do this in direct violation of a resolution passed by the Court of Quarter Sessions. My brother magistrates, finding that the right hon. Gentleman was using his influence for this purpose, they began to look closely into the present Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was evidently engaged in an attempt to raise our visiting justices, our committee, in revolt against the resolution of the Court of Quarter Session, under the terms of the Prison Ministers Act, which he thought would cover the operation; if the Secretary of State was to obtain such enormous powers as he asks by this Bill, those powers might be used to punish the court, by compelling us to levy additional taxation upon the ratepayers. What a position we should then be in! If we did not levy money to accomplish the purposes of the Secretary of State, we should be placed in a false position with the ratepayers; because the right hon. Gentleman might withhold the Government allowance for the maintenance of the prisoners, and then we should be in the position of having to tax the ratepayers

  2067
  of the county the more as a penance for not having complied with his demands. Supposing he were to say, "I insist upon a Roman Catholic Chapel being built in one of the prisons," and the justices were to refuse. He might at once declare that prison inadequate; and when he had done that, of course he would withhold the Government allowance, and we should have to levy the differences upon the ratepayers. Surely these are not unreasonable objections. Then this Ultramontane paper goes on to say—
  "With these fanatics and hypocrites religious liberty means the right of going wrong in spiritual masters, and the power of tormenting those who repudiate such a right. Catholics hold to dogma in religious matters, and the Evangelical Protestantism would enforce its own principle of the right of every man to think as he pleases upon religious subjects."
  It then proceeds in the same strain, with respect to the Prison Minister Act—
  "As Protestantism is based upon the right of private judgment in matters spiritual, the Government and the Parliament, consisting mostly of Protestants, concluded, naturally enough, that in this Protestant country the benefit of the great Protestant principle would be freely extended to non-Protestants, and that Protestant magistrates and guardians would cheerful take the requisite steps for the religious instruction of Catholics in prisons and workhouses, not withstanding the maintenance of the opposite principle by all members of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, their confidence was lamentably misplaced."
  Now, that is not an unfair representation of the opinion of the House. I am happy to say, however we may be mistaken; and the Prison Ministers Act, to a certain extent, admits the principle of religious liberty, and that is the principle which this paper condemns. With the permission of the House, I will read a few more words from the same paper—
  "The permissory character of the prison Minister Bill is traceable to a far different source. Sir George Grey was apprehensive of arousing Protestant bigotry and intolerance by a compulsory measure, and he tried to coax the 'great unpaid' into a liberal and generous course. He has failed egregiously, as we foresaw from the beginning, for the Parliament is far more liberal than the nation; and the deeper we descend into the substratum of English society, the more copiously do we discover the existence of intense bigotry and intolerance. The Clerkenwell magistrates and the Chelsea Guardians are animated by the like spirit—intense hatred of the Catholic Church; and as the same feeling, though, perhaps, less virulently, pervades the mass of English Protestantism, especially amongst the country squires and the middle and lower classes both Government and parliament must at once make up their minds either to leave gross and admitted injustice unredressed and unrectified, or to make their remedies compulsory as regards both prisons and workhouses.?
  2068
  Such is the language that I find in this Ultramontane organ. It then gives an instance of how in Liverpool the guardians have declared that a Roman Catholic chaplain should attend the poor in the workhouse, and selected three priests for the purpose, but restricting them to the rule that one only should be allowed to attend at a time. But these priests declare that no such "Paltry admission" as this will satisfy them, and they say—thus writes the Weekly Register—
  "Under the Act of Parliament, if there were sixty Catholic paupers in the Liverpool workhouse, and as many Catholic clergymen in the borough there is no authority in the poor law officials to prevent the visit of the whole of those sixty priests to the institution at the same time and at all hours of the day every day of the year."
  Sir, that only shows the extent of the demands which we may expect to see urged from that quarter. This demand was urged by the improperly styled (Roman) Catholic Bishop of Liverpool. And has further consideration altered the opinion which this Ultramontanist organ represents with respect to this Bill? Why, in the Weekly Register of the Saturday last, I find this statement—
  "Sir George Grey has fixed Monday next for the second reading of the Gaols Bill, and as the evangelical bigots in London and throughout the country are straining every nerve to defeat the measure, merely because it empowers the Government to order provision to be made for the spiritual instruction of Catholic prisoners, it is of the last importance that the Irish Members—[let the House observe that it is an English Bill]—who represent Catholic constituencies, should be at their post to support the Home Secretary."
  We all know very well what is understood by the phrase "spiritual instruction." It means the supervision of priest exercised ever a prisoner in a separate cell, whether the prisoner desires that supervision or not. By the Prison Ministers Act the priest would not be admitted by the free request or by the voluntary act of the prisoner; but whether the prisoner will or not, he would be subjected to the direct control of a priest to be admitted to the cell in which the unhappy man is confined. Entertaining the deep love of religious freedom and the right of private judgment which this Ultramontane organ says pervades, not only this House, but the country, from the upper through the middle classes down to the lowest stratum of society, I deprecate the passing of any measure which might place the Home Secretary in the position of being temped to

  2069
  violate at once the spirit of our legislation and the religious feelings of the people, by enabling this Ultramontane faction to exercise the greatest moral tyranny through their priests over these helpless persons who, owing to their unfortunate position, could not escape from this spiritual thraldom, we have heard a great deal about the advantages to prison discipline which will be likely to accrue from the appointment of Roman Catholic Priests as gaol chaplains. Sir, I hold in my hand the copy of a letter written by a person of the name of Thwaites, in which he says it was his misfortune to have spent nearly ten years as first schoolmaster in the English convict prisons, and that whilst thus employed he had ample opportunities of testing the value of the services of the Roman Catholic chaplains among the convicts of that persuasion. He declares that he speaks from personal knowledge, for he has had to do with 17,000 convicts, and that those who were under the direct control of Roman Catholic chaplains, and were the best thought of by them, were in several instances implicated in those violences and outbreaks which, I am sorry to say, have marked the recent history of our convict prisons. He also declares emphatically that he believes it can be proved, by documents which are in the possession of the Home office, that the power exercised by these Roman Catholic chaplains has conduced neither to preserve order and discipline, nor to improve the prisoners; but that this one marked fact remains, that the most violent of those who have been concerned in these outbreaks were the very men who had accepted the most willingly the tuition of Roman Catholic chaplains. And this is only consistent with that which we have heard respecting the outbreaks at the Reformatory of Mount St. Bernard in Leicestershire. I am sorry to say that I have, moreover, heard that the Roman Catholic chaplain at Parkburst, having been informed that some of the assistants of the matron possessed Protestant books —these persons being Protestants themselves—immediately went to the Governor of the goal, by whom, on the representations of this priest, an order was issued that these books must be given up, although it could not be proved that they had been used among the prisoners. Thus you have a direct interference on the part of a Roman Catholic chaplain with the religious freedom of the gaol officials, And why? Because it seems that one of the
  2070
  attendants of the matron had been converted to Popery, and it was through her means that the priest came to the knowledge that these books were in the possession of her Protestant fellow-servants. I am sorry to hear these reports, but they seem to me to be a sufficient answer to those reflections which are sometimes cast upon my brother magistrates, because they have proceeded with great caution in carrying out the provisions of the Prison Ministers Act. Ample evidence might be adduced to show that the manner in which the Justices and borough magistrates have used the discretion which is vested in them by that Act affords no ground and no reason why this House should be induced to sanction any arbitrary interference with their discretion. The principle of this Bill is exactly the opposite of the prison Ministers Act. The prison Minister Act vested a discretion in the magistrates; the chief purpose of this Bill is to coerce that discretion. It is quite true that it is indirectly that the operation of this Bill upon the appointment of Roman Catholic priests or Nonconformist ministers would be brought to bear, but that operation would be none the less effectual. I was not fully aware of this intention until I read the correspondence which was carried on by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with the visiting justices of Middlesex. The whole tenor of the Bill is to supersede, by the authority of the Secretary of State, the discretion which has been vested in the justices, in the magistrates, in the town councils, in the local authorities of this country, with respect to the prisons under their charge. I am very far from saying that all our prisons are what they ought to be. I am far from wishing the House for one moment to suppose that I overlook the fact that transportation has been practically abandoned, or reduced to so small a practice as not to be worth consideration. I do not wish to overlook that fact, but what does that fact entail? Why, an enormous expenditure, in order to provide for the accumulation of convicts in this country. If our prison discipline is to be what it ought to be, goals must be constructed to carry it out; and the construction of those goals will involve a vast expenditure if they are to be conducted upon the Pentonville system, and even a still greater expenditure if the separate system is to be enforced with due regard to the health and sanity of the prisoners; for the evidence is conclusive that there is

  2071
  great danger in that system if it be carelessly administered. This brings back to my mind the substance of a conversation which I had with the late Sir Benjamin Brodie on this subject. He said—
  "It was through my intervention that the prison dietary of Pentonville was improved, that the prisoners now receive a dietary which seems to some persons to be so extraordinary. I did this," he went on to say, "by threatening to resign unless the dietary was improved; for I found that the minds of the prisoners were sinking under the debility of their bodies, and that the punishment practically inflicted was so severe that their sanity failed under the system."
  Whilst speaking upon this subject, let me recall the attention of the House to this particular danger. I have witnessed dreadful results from the abuse of the separate system in the United States of America. I saw such a scene in the prison of Philadelphia as I shall never forget to the latest hour of my existence. There I saw men in every stage of mental and physical decomposition under the operation of the separate system carried out in an exaggerated form, and the House will forgive me if I quote a passage from a letter written by the President of Bethlehem Hospital to Lord Westminster on this very question. The president says—
  "My attention has been forced to the results of the system of separate imprisonment. As president of Bethlehem Hospital I have been compelled to hear the warrants of the Secretary of State read for the admission to that lunatic hospital of the victims of the separate system sent from the two Government prisons—the Millbank Penitentiary and the Pentonville prison. The noble Marquess is doubtless unaware that during the last ten years no fewer than forty lunatics have been sent from the Penitentiary to Bethlehem, while in the preceding ten years only fourteen were so sent; and are the public expected to believe that this fearful increase is not the direct result of the separate system?"
  SIR GEORGE GREY: What is the date of that letter?
  MR. NEWDEGATE: It was written in 1847, and my attention was first directed to it by the late Duke of Richmond, one of the Commissioners for the management of the Pentonville experiment. The right hon. Gentleman was himself one of the Commissioners, and, highly to his honour, concurred with Sir Benjamin Brodie and the other Commissioners in the necessity for raising the prison dietary up to a high scale, because it was found that the prisoners could not bear separate confinement on a low dietary. The right hon. Gentleman deserves all honour for the part he
  2072
  took in effecting that improvement; but it is as well to mention this now, because it is proposed by the Bill before us that we should enforce this system — greatly improved I admit, and certainly better understood now than formerly, but still this very system—in all the gaols of England. I pray the House not to give the power to whomsoever may be the Home Secretary hereafter to enforce this system without laying down rules that shall limit its application and guard it from the cruelty with which it might be applied through ignorance, through want of information, or through insufficient attendance. If the House resolves to arm the Secretary of State with this power to enforce the separate system of prison discipline throughout the county and borough gaols, the House is bound to enforce on the magistrates the duty of providing an adequate staff of officials, and to make provision for the expenses that may be necessarily incurred by direct and specific enactment. I trust the House will forgive me for having trespassed so long upon its attention. I have watched these experiments now for more than twenty years, and I rejoice to say that experience has mitigated the dangers of the application of the separate system; but if you are about to enforce that system upon unwilling and reluctant authorities, let me pray the House to define what shall be enforced, and to make the justices really responsible. Under this Bill, as it stands, there will be no real, direct, tangible responsibility. The Secretary of State will issue some unknown orders to the magistrates; the magistrates will comply; the ratepayers will complain, something will go wrong. Then the question will arise, "Whose fault is it?" Under such a vague power as is here created, you will have nothing, in fact, but the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and the House knows that so various are the functions of the Secretary of State, that he is practically exempted from that direct responsibility which ought to attach to those who have in their keeping the bodies, the minds, the health, the sanity of the prisoners who are placed under their control. You will have no direct responsibility under this Bill; and it is for that reason, amongst others which I have enumerated, that I venture now to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months, not because I do not desire that a Bill for the regulation of our gaols should pass,

  2073
  but because this Bill violates the great principle of local self-government, because it violates the principles of the Constitution as to taxation, and fails in this — that it affords no specific directions, prescribes no adequate limitations, because it provides no adequate security, and entails no adequate responsibility to guard the application of the power it would bring into operation; because, in short, the Bill is too vague to become a safe instrument for securing the advantages, which I am confident it is the desire of the House to confer upon the country.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he rose to second the Amendment. At the same time, he rested his opposition to the Bill on different grounds from those which characterized the arguments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He (Mr. Barrow) objected to the Bill because he was opposed to the principle of centralization of authority in this country. He considered there was already quite enough of departmental despotism. The Bill would place the local authorities, as far as regarded the gaols, in a different position altogether to what they stood in at present. If the visiting justices, for example, made an inadequate provision as regarded the dietary of the gaol, the prisoners would have some chances of obtaining a remedy for their grievances by appealing in counties to the justices. The provisions of the existing Act clearly showed that this remedy was intended to be given them by the Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, had proposed to make improvements in the prison rules, but the existing law already authorizes him to do so by enabling him to revise and alter any rules submitted to him by the visiting justices, and the failure to exercise this power hitherto does not furnish a sufficient reason for depriving the visiting justices of all voice in the matter. It was the duty of the Secretary of State, as part of the executive Government, to see that the law was enforced; but the visiting justices also were a material part of the executive Government; and what he desired was that these two authorities should act in harmony with each other. He was most anxious that the discipline of the prisons should be enforced; and it was with regret that he noticed, upon examining the records of the gaols and the blue-books upon the subject, that re-commitments were greatly increasing. He was anxious that punishment should be both deterrent and reformatory,
  2074
  and he was convinced that a certain amount of hard labour was essential, both for the benefit of the prisoner and of society. With respect to the separate system, he wished to say that he was not in favour of extreme separation. In any prisons to be erected it was desirable so to construct them that a prisoner might be sent to his separate cell for the greater part of the day, and then let him have open-air exercise, with hard labour, for two hours. All medical men with whom he had conversed upon the subject declared that the most sanitary employment in a prison was open-air exercise. It tended to keep the prisoner in a better state of health as regarded the body, and put him in a fitter state of mind for receiving instruction and advice. He was anxious that an amount of hard labour more than was ordinarily inflicted in the prisons should be adopted. He entirely objected to those clauses of the Bill which gave despotic power to the Secretary of State, at whose mercy it would place the money of the ratepayers. At present the plans for additional buildings were considered by the local authorities, and submitted to the Secretary of State, who had a veto; but it was not often that any difference arose between the two. In the Bill, however, by a fiction of law (and he hated all fictions of law), a power had been introduced which would enable the Secretary of State to contract in the names of other parties, and make other parties liable to an indefinite extent. He could not imagine that either magistrates, ratepayers, or town councils would be willing to submit to such arbitrary provisions. If there was a difference of opinion between the local authorities and the Government, the question ought at least to be submitted to a judicial decision—as, for instance, that of a Judge of Assize. He was surprised to see that the Inspectors said that an Act of Parliament was necessary to enable any alteration to be made in the size of the cells and for separate confinement. The fact was, that the size of those cells was fixed by the authority of the Secretary of State, who might, if he pleased, alter it to-morrow. He believed that the percentage of improvement as to separate confinement was fully equal to what was stated by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and he was convinced that it might be still further extended by concert between the local authorities and the Secretary of State, without any such Bill as that before the House.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months," —(Mr. Newdegate.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was quite unable to support the Amendment which had been moved; and he confessed that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down rather impressed upon his mind the idea that he ought to be very desirous for the passing of a Bill of the character of that before them. The speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to him to be founded entirely upon the apprehension which he entertained with regard to the fourth clause, which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had already intimated his readiness to withdraw. He (Sir John Pakington) confessed that he had never been able to understand the strong objections which had been expressed by some hon. Members to that fourth clause; because, as he read it, it only enabled the Secretary of State to do at any time of the year that which he could now do only at a particular period. At any rate it appeared to him to be a matter not worth half-an-hour's discussion. He-must say that he regarded the Bill as a most important one in the interests of this country; and he hoped the House would regard the question as one rather between honest men and rogues than as between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Prison Ministers Bill appeared to him to have nothing at all to do with the subject before them. The fact was that many serious evils in the gaols had long existed and long been known; and they had been forced into unusual prominence by the very able Report presented by a Committee of the House of Lords upon the state of our prison discipline. A most dangerous and objectionable want of uniformity in the practice in various gaols had been found to exist. In not a few gaols, especially in the smaller towns and boroughs, a degree of laxity and negligence had prevailed which, combined with that want of uniformity, had seriously interfered with and impeded the administration of the criminal law. Under these circumstances, and in presence of that able Report to which he had referred, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) would have neglected his duty if he had not, during
  2076
  the Session, introduced a measure with the view of obviating these dangers and difficulties. He must also say, that it was a little hard upon the right hon. Gentleman that when he undertook to deal with the subject he was met with the cry of centralization. Nobody was less disposed than he (Sir John Pakington) to question the general efficiency and discretion with which the duties of the magistracy were exercised and the advantage which resulted to the country; but it was possible that the magistrates might be intrusted with too extensive powers. Experience had shown that in regard to our gaols there was a greater amount of negligence and laxity of actions than was consistent with the interests of the country. Entertaining these opinions, and considering that the question before the House that night was not as to the details of the Bill, but its principle, he could have no hesitation, in declaring his intention to vote for the second reading. As regarded the purpose of the discussion that night, it turned upon the third, fourth and fifth clauses. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had already stated that he was prepared to withdraw the fourth. The third clause was one which he thought in its principle was extremely necessary. He would not pledge himself to all its provisions; but he thought the provisions introduced at the end went very far to disarm any objections or apprehensions which might be made or entertained. He would suggest that there was something rather inconvenient and unusual in the extraordinary length of the fifth clause, which was the longest he ever remembered to have seen in a Bill. It was indeed a small Bill of itself. From the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House, he was convinced that he would fairly consider any suggestions which might be made, and he took the liberty accordingly of pointing out with what advantage this clause might be divided into two, three, or even more. With regard to the observations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley), he thought there was a great deal in them that was worthy of the consideration of the House. Regretting as he did that, having regard to the magnitude of the evils which the Bill was designed to correct, it was necessary to give larger powers to the Secretary of State than he had hitherto exercised; at the same time he quite agreed

  2077
  with his right, hon. Friend that, so far as it was possible and safe to embody in an Act of Parliament the principle upon which our gaols were to be governed, it was desirable to do so. He confessed his disappointment with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) when he introduced the Bill, that he had not attempted any definition of hard labour, and still more that the right hon. Gentleman after reflection should have told them that evening, that although he had no objection to introduce any satisfactory definition that could be adopted, he believed it to be impossible. Now, he (Sir John Pakington) did not think that it was so impossible to define hard labour as was represented; and certainly the reasons given were not conclusive in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. It was quite true that it would be more difficult to deal upon this question with the cases of women than of men; but even supposing it were found impossible with regard to women, it by no means followed that they could not define hard labour for men whose sentences were mere frequent, and for longer periods. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the interval from the discussion to going into Committee, would take this point into his serious consideration, because it would be much safer to have hard labour defined than to have it in its present condition, the practice in no two cases being alike. In Worcester, what was called "hard labour" consisted in making mats in a comfortable cell. In his opinion that was not hard labour, and words ought to be introduced which would prevent any body of justices from putting such an interpretation on the sentence. The questions of diet and hard labour were very closely connected, and he put it to the right hon. Gentlemen whether the passing of the measure would not be facilitated if he were to lay down a maximum and a minimum system of dietary, which might be apportioned to the hard labour. It might also be well if some leading rules for the governance of gaols could be laid down, but on that point he felt graver doubts than upon the others.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, instead of answering the arguments of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, had endeavoured to distract the attention of the House from the real point raised by that Amendment. The Bill professed to be
  2078
  founded on the Report emanating from the House of Lords. But what was the fact? Instead of embodying, as that Report recommended, such rules as were thought admissible in the schedule to an Act of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman sought to obtain from Parliament power to make those rules himself. The Bill was not what it pretended to be, and was, therefore, a surprise upon Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman treated, with great indifference and contempt, what he was pleased to call religious objections, and pledged his personal assurance that there was nothing whatever to justify the apprehensions entertained. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the objections were not religious, but political in their character. These objections were levelled not at the Roman Catholic religion, but at a political organization in this country—an organization not of the laity but of the Roman Catholic priesthood which, in gaols, in workhouses, or in other institutions, and whether in England or in Ireland, was alike fatal to the independence and true interests of the country, and, moreover, opposed to all the warnings of history, and to the plain enactments on our own statute-book. In spite of the personal assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, apprehensions must continue whilst that active political enemy not only existed, but was subsidized in this country to an extent greater than appeared by the Estimates was patronized and petted by the present Government, and in an especial manner by the right hon. Gentleman himself. As had been shown by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, wherever the Roman Catholic priests went there were to be found the source of all sedition and difficulty. It was quite clear that the 5th clause was objectionable, and that to be properly understood it should be simplified; but as it stood it was perfectly clear that it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to obtain the power of transferring prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion from prisons where the magistrates had refused to provide funds to other prisons where adequate provision had been made for their religious instruction; and no doubt it was intended to have in one or more prisons a regular Roman Catholic church service. He had before the introduction of the Bill come to the conclusion that it would be better to abstain from alluding to these religious questions in that House, and he should be content to abide by what he

  2079
  understood the wisdom of their ancestors had provided against such Acts as those to which the right hon. Gentleman desired to obtain the sanction of Parliament. The Act of 1829 provided that not one single Jesuit should remain in this country unregistered under the penalty of £20 a day, and yet by a Return presented to the House it appeared that there were now fifty-six monasteries and one hundred and thirty convents in this country. In the year 1862 the House, on his Motion, rejected a Bill somewhat similar to that passed last Session. As soon as Parliament was prorogued, however, the Home Secretary issued an order by which he had literally supplied the Roman Catholic priests with keys to the cells of the Roman Catholic prisoners, and had enabled those priests to thrust on them their ministrations; and that was done although the Return clearly showed that not 5 per cent of the prisoners desired the interposition of the priests. By the admirable provision of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the opinion of three eminent counsel had been obtained, from which it appeared that the Home Secretary could send priests into the gaols whether required or not. The question was one of surprise and good faith. Why, then, was the clause so carelessly drawn as to admit of the doubt and justify the legal opinion in question? Would the House allow him to call attention to the action of the Home Secretary in the convict prison of Perth? [Sir GEORGE GREY: Perth is a Government prison.] A Roman Catholic female prisoner desired to be revisited by a Scripture reader. The priest complained, and the right hon. Gentleman not merely prohibited her from seeing the Scripture reader again, but issued a general order that no Scripture reader should be in future permitted to visit a Roman Catholic prisoner even at his or her own request. The danger as pointed out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was, that under the 5th clause of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman could act in pretty much the same manner.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member had misunderstood him. The questions he had put turned on the effect of the whole Bill, and not on one particular portion of it.
  MR. WHALLEY: One of the questions of the hon. Member was, whether the right hon. Gentleman under the Bill would not be enabled to transfer Roman Catholic pri-
  2080
  soners who were denied ministration of the Roman Catholic priests to gaols where the magistrates had no such scruples? Taking the context of the clauses he feared the right hon. Baronet desired to take powers of which he did not now disclose the purport. But he appealed from the Bill to the protection which he had under the Act of Settlement of 1688. He for one rejoiced that the Protestants of this country had a protection under that Act beyond the reach of the Bill, even although it might be passed into a law. They knew that Her Majesty held her position as Sovereign on condition not only of not being a Papist, but of not being reconciled to or recognizing the Pope of Rome. But what had the right hon. Gentleman done by the Bill of last Session, and what was he doing now? Why, he was making the Queen take upon herself through her nominees, the magistrates, to raise taxes from the counties for the payment of these Roman Catholic priests. If that construction were right the objectors to the Bill were not all of them those fanatics or "religious persons" they had been described. The Bill ought to be regarded with circumspection, for although the necessary abatement could be made in the case of statements of Roman Catholics who made the means subservient to the end, it behoved them to be cautious in receiving the statements of the right hon. Gentleman as to the real scope and ultimate object of the measure.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was the awful consequences which would result to Roman Catholic prisoners if the priests of their faith should be allowed to see them in prison. Now, he maintained that, as it was a right and proper thing that the Protestant chaplain should visit the Protestant prisoners, though they made no application to have him to see them, so it was equally right that the Catholic priest should see those prisoners who belonged to his communion, even though they might have expressed no wish to that effect. It was a fatal thing both to society and the prisoner himself to turn him out of prison unreformed, and he believed that if the religious influence were not brought to bear on prisoners, whether Protestant or Catholic, there was little chance of their conversion from crime. But was it or was it not a greater violation of the principles of religious liberty to force a Protestant chaplain

  2081
  upon a Protestant prisoner than to force the ministration of a Catholic priest upon a Catholic prisoner? The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had never denounced the former as a violation of such principles. Was not the religious influence exercised by the Catholic priest upon a prisoner the same as that exercised by a Protestant chaplain? [Mr. NEWDEGATE: No!] He had not spoken with reference to doctrinal differences, nor was he going to enter into religious controversy in that House, but none but a fanatic could say that it was not for the benefit of the poor ignorant vicious Catholic prisoner that he should receive the ministrations of his priest. He would ask the right hon. Baronet to answer this question—whether the relaxation of the rule by which the ministration of the Catholic priest was limited to those Catholics who asked for them had not been attended with the best possible consequences? [Mr. WHALLEY: That's a leading question.] From the information which had reached him he asserted that it had. Not very long since, he believed in the Millbank Prison, an unfortunate Irish Catholic prisoner became particularly hardened, and no one could control him. He attacked the governor and warders, and made such a savage onslaught upon one of the latter that he almost tore the warder's thumb off. That furious demon was taken in hand by the Rev. Mr. Oakley, the Catholic priest who was then visiting the prison, and the result was that in a short time he became under his ministration one of the most docile of the prisoners. What danger could attend the visits of the Roman Catholic priest in England more than Ireland? In Ireland, if there were only five Protestants in prison they would have a Protestant chaplain, and Catholics did not object. On the contrary, they said it was quite right and just. But one hon. Gentleman in that House imagined that it was a regular Popish plot, and another that there was a combination of Jesuits and the Lord knows what, if the Catholic priest was allowed to visit, not Protestants or Presbyterians, but those of his own communion. If the Government found that any magistrates were so foolish as not to adopt the very best means of reforming the Roman Catholic prisoners under their jurisdiction, they ought to have the courage to bring in a Bill by which they might themselves have the power in every such case of neglect to appoint a Roman Catholic
  2082
  chaplain; and they ought also to take the sense of the House of Commons on the point.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that it was not his intention to follow the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken into that particular part of the subject, which, in his opinion, had been somewhat needlessly imported into the discussion; but he rose to say a few words in reference to a gaol which had been twice prominently alluded to—he meant the principal gaol in the county which he had the honour to represent. He trusted he might be excused for saying that the case was not so bad as had been represented. The right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), and the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), had stated that in Reading Gaol there was no work at all—that the principle of that gaol was that the prisoners should not work. That was not exactly the case. There was a crank there, and within the last twelve months considerable money had been spent in laying in a store of stones for the prisoners to break, though he believed that breaking stones was not called hard labour. Reading Gaol was one of the first model gaols in this country, and was built about twenty years ago, on the separate system. From all that he had seen, he was not disposed to give an unqualified adherence to the working of that system. Not only were the cells separate, but the chapel was so constructed that no prisoner in it could see another, as it was assumed that there would be great danger in prisoners knowing each other in gaol, lest they might meet again in after life. He thought that was rather riding the hobby too hard. Of course he was in favour of separate cells for sleeping and for occupation during the greater part of the day; but when the prisoners were at hard labour he did not see why they should not work in common, as at Portland and other Government prisons. He was, therefore, by no means disposed to recommend the system at Reading in an unqualified manner. He had noticed that the chaplains of that gaol had always urged on the magistrates the expediency of passing long sentences, for the mere purpose of reformation, which he considered unwise and contrary to the principles of criminal justice. The theory which those gentlemen wish to carry out was that of an exclusively reformatory plan. Now, he had very great doubts whether they could

  2083
  carry reformation to any very great extent in gaols, though, of course, they were bound to give the prisoners a chance, but to base the whole system of prison discipline on that theory was, he thought, mischievous, and likely to be unsuccessful. Therefore, he considered that prison discipline should be accompanied with a considerable amount of hard work. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that it would not be wise to lay down any very strict definition of hard labour. The Select Committee found that it was much more easy to define what hard labour was not than what it was, and, if he recollected aright, they defined what it was not by saying that nothing should be considered as hard labour but what tended to raise the pulse and promote perspiration. He remembered reading of an Italian physician who cured a patient of the gout by setting him to dance on a hot floor, and, perhaps, if a prisoner at the treadmill had to step upon a hot metal plate, such an arrangement might be considered as coming within the definition of hard labour he had just referred to. These were matters, indeed, which ought to be left in the first instance to the magistrates themselves, subject to the control of the Home Secretary. He had not any fear of centralization, for if the Home Secretary abused his powers he would very soon hear of it in that House. That was a great security against abuse. With regard to the treatment of the prisoners, it would not do to deprive the magistrates of all discretion; but if Parliament laid down general rules founded on the experience of men who had studied the subject, then the matter should be left in the hands of the magistrates, subject to those general rules and to the control of the Home Office. He did not see that the Bill did more than that, and he was ready to give his vote in favour of the second reading.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, he thought that a consolidation of the various statutes relating to prison discipline was desirable, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would direct his attention to that subject. He admitted that there was a good deal in the argument that the Bill was a step towards centralization, yet when he knew that there were numerous prisons deficient in the means of giving hard labour to prisoners and in carrying out the punishments awarded, he must acknowledge that
  2084
  there was a case for further legislation. It was of the greatest importance, in his mind, to secure a uniformity of punishment, and to prevent two similar sentences from being carried out in two very dissimilar ways. It seemed to him to be quite impossible to frame any Act of Parliament which would meet all difficulties with respect to the details of diet and discipline. Therefore, it was necessary in respect to those matters to leave power in the hands of some authority, and he could not see in what safer hands it could be left than in those of the Home Secretary, having the aid of competent advisers, and subject to the control of that House. He should therefore support the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not wish to discuss the Bill from a religious point of view, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman, had satisfied the House that he did not intend to give any power under the third clause of the Bill to appoint ministers. He strongly objected to the power which the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed to take under the Bill of removing prisoners from local gaols, under certain circumstances, and placing them in county gaols. That was a most unusual, and unwarrantable power, and quite beyond the necessity of the case, which would have been satisfied by taking a power to refuse expenses in prisons where the separate system was not carried, out. He should oppose the clause in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the petitions against the Bill came only from Protestants, but he (Mr. Hibbert) had that day presented a petition from the visiting justices of Salford, objecting to the power taken by the Home Secretary to direct how punishments should be carried put. Whilst they admitted that there should be a certain definition of hard labour, they held that the powers of the Secretary of State were already sufficient, and that any extension of them would involve an unnecessary and injudicious interference with the duties of the visiting justices. He agreed in the observations of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire, with one exception. He doubted whether it would be wise to insert the rules for gaols in an Act of Parliament, because that might prevent future amendment in details. The great improvement which had already been effected in county gaols was due not to the Home Secretary, but to the visiting

  2085
  justices throughout the country. It was most desirable that these gentlemen should continue to devote attention to so important a matter, but there was reason to fear that if the rules were laid down positively by an Act of Parliament they would not give the same consideration to the subject, as their suggestions would then be of no avail. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that instead of defining the rules in a schedule to an Act of Parliament the better plan would be to lay the rules when drawn up on the table of the House, as was done in the case of the Minutes of the Privy Council, that they might be considered before they were carried into operation. He could not adopt the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire's definition of hard labour. Mat-making, cotton-picking, and so on, really constituted hard labour if a prisoner was bound to do a certain amount of such work each day. If the principle of the right hon. Gentleman were established, only a small proportion of the prisoners in Salford Gaol would be regarded as subject to hard labour. In addition to the tread-wheel and cranks, the employment in that establishment included mat-making, weaving, picking oakum, wool, and cotton, smith and carpenters' work, shoemaking, tailoring, &c. During the year ending May 24th the work done by the prisoners yielded a clear profit of £2,245, and that Was a relief for which the taxpayers were grateful. Comparing the average net cost of prisoners indifferent gaols, he found that the highest rate was at Oakham, owing no doubt, to the small number of inmates. The lowest rate was at Salford, £11 4s. 5½d. per head. At Stafford the rate was £18 10 s. 7¾ d.; at Wakefield, £14 6s. 5¼ d.; and at Manchester, £14 17 s. 9d. The average cost of the inmates of the Government convict prisons was £37 per head per annum; and, comparing that with the other figures, he saw no inducement to extend the authority of the Secretary of State in this direction. As to the separation he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the 5th clause, but would be satisfied with the improvements which, were gradually taking place. On the subject of dietary he had received communications from the governors of Lancaster Gaol and Liverpool Borough Gaol approving some of the alterations in the dietary, but pointing out that they would give considerable trouble and require the engagement of additional officers.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he believed that the Bill would be much more acceptable if the apprehension had not been entertained that some of its provisions would have the effect of very much interfering with the liberty of action which had hitherto been allowed to the magistrates. A good deal of disappointment had been occasioned also by the fact, that the Bill did not give full effect to the recommendations generally approved by the Lords' Committee of last year. The three cardinal points were the enforcement of the separate system, hard labour, and uniformity of diet, and in his opinion any amendment of the law relating to the management of the gaols would be inadequate which did not contain provisions on these points. As to the apprehended interference with the magistrates, the Home Secretary had stated that he set no value on Clause 4, as it gave no new power, and that he was prepared to abandon it. After such an announcement, he thought that they need not look at that provision with the apprehension entertained by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Indeed there existed no necessity for their entering into a discussion upon the subject. With respect to the great question of the religious teaching of prisoners, and of children in workhouses, he had to observe that he should be ready to discuss it at the proper time and in the proper place, but he did not believe that they had such time or place before them at that moment. The question they had to consider was whether they should not allow the Bill to go into Committee in order that they might be enabled to consider the amendments which the right hon. Baronet himself announced that he was prepared to introduce into its clauses, in accordance with the suggestions which had fallen from both sides of the House. If they were all agreed as to a uniform system of gaol management, there would be no difficulty in embodying the requisite powers in an Act of Parliament. He ventured to ask whether the time had not come when Members ought to lay aside their individual crotchets. He could not say that he had himself disapproved of the separate system when it had first been introduced; and his objections to it, as it was carried out at Pentonville, had not quite disappeared; but it had been adopted in almost all the great gaols thoughout the country, and he believed they might take it for granted that it ought to be generally

  2087
  enforced for the purpose of ensuring uniformity in our system of prison discipline. It had been said that there would be a difficulty in inserting the rules in an Act of parliament; but in the statute which was the model for legislation on such a matter he found that the rules were inserted. He hoped great alterations would be made in the Bill. He was anxious to obtain a definition of hard labour, and the insertion in the clauses or schedules of a series of rules; but he was quite prepared to support the motion for the second reading, so that they might be able to consider those details in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the 4th clause gave no additional powers to the Secretary of State, but he had no objection to withdraw it, though he did not admit there was any foundation for the apprehensions entertained by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. If he had intended to give the slightest additional power to the Home Secretary with respect to the teaching of religion in prisons, he should have proposed the change in an open way by introducing a clause for the purpose, and he could only regret that he should have been thought capable of acting otherwise. He was also sorry that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had alluded to a correspondence between the Home Office and the visiting justices of three gaols in Middlesex, because if the hon. Gentleman had waited till the documents were produced he would have seen that the course he had taken was not unworthy the office he had the honour to fill, and that, in fact, the visiting justices of one of the prisons entirely concurred in his opinions. The right hon. Member for Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt) had expressed his regret that the Bill did not give effect to three of the recommendations of the Lords' Committee—those relating to hard labour, rules, and dietaries. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to frame such a definition of hard labour as would be sufficiently comprehensive to include all kinds of labour deserving to be called hard; but he would be ready to accept in Committee any definitions likely to answer all the requisite conditions. The leading rules with respect to prisons were laid down in existing Acts of Parliament, but the proposal of the Lords' Committee to embody in a Bill every rule relating to every prison, while it would produce
  2088
  uniformity, would prove in many cases quite impracticable. As for dietaries, the recommendation of the Lords' Committee was, not that there should be any absolute rule laid down in the Bill, but that the subject should be inquired into; and he acted according both to the letter and to the spirit of that recommendation, in appointing a Commission of Inquiry, and afterwards sending to the local authorities in each district the dietary tables suggested by the Commissioners, recommending it to them, but not absolutely enforcing its adoption. On the whole, he believed the principle of the Bill met with the general approval of the House, and he should be ready in Committee to give the best consideration to any suggestion that might be made for the amendment of the clauses.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Questions."
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 49: Majority 67.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL— [BILL 96.]

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th June]. "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he rose to take objection to this measure on the third reading—a course which he was aware placed him under considerable disadvantage. But he begged to remind the House that no discussion had occurred on the principle of the Bill on the second reading, or, at least, the discussion then was very slight and inadequate to the importance of the measure. He took exception to the measure on three main grounds. First, he thought it very unnecessary to disturb the present relations between the taxpayers and the machinery by which the taxes were collected. Next, if it was at all desirable to alter the system upon which the taxation was collected, he thought it exceedingly undesirable to do so by a permissive Bill. And, thirdly, he regarded all Bills which contained large and sweeping exceptions as very objectionable. Having acted as a Commissioner

  2089
  of Taxes for the last forty years, he was able to speak with considerable confidence on the way in which the operation proceeded. He could speak as to the smoothness of that operation, the little annoyance it caused to the people, the very small amount of loss occasioned to the Exchequer by the mode of payment and collection, and therefore the undesirableness of interference with it. Moreover, he greatly apprehended that if the Bill passed it would be only the prelude of more compulsory measures. If that were so, a very considerable element in the collection of our national taxation would be disturbed. A body of gentlemen throughout the country now gave their time gratuitously to the supervision of that revenue operation—he meant the local Commissioners of Taxes, to the value of whose services the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than once borne testimony. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] Surely, then, it was no light matter that that right hon. Gentleman should throw discouragement and discredit upon exertions of these gentlemen for the public interest. If the measure was carried to the full extent, he seriously feared that the local Commissioners of Taxes would in a great degree cease to discharge those duties. They would find those duties very irksome to them when they had to be performed as if under compulsion and in co-operation with officers not of their appointment, but strangers brought to the locality and shifted about from time to time, and altogether very different from the men with whom they had hitherto acted. Although, no doubt, assessors and collectors of taxes were in theory or in law changeable from year to year, yet in practice the same men, the men most intelligent and best educated in their respective parishes were chosen by their fellow parishioners as collectors and assessors of taxes, and in the rural districts the collector and the assessor was generally one and the same person. They executed their functions with perfect integrity, and he did not see why a great slur should be cast upon them simply because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or rather the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, might have on their hands a number of supernumerary officers for whom they desired to find situations. He found by the third clause that a species of election was given, and the districts were to be invited to decide whether they
  2090
  would put the Bill in force. Most country places would refuse; some of the large towns, such as London, Liverpool, and Birmingham, might be disposed to consent to it. What was good for London, he should have thought would be good for all the large towns, but it appeared London was to be excepted. He had not heard any adequate reason assigned; but there might have been some pressure put on the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the sixteen Members representing the metropolis had an interview, or had expressed their opinion in a sufficiently emphatic manner; but though the metropolis was excepted now, do not let those Members flatter themselves that it would long remain so. Once let the Bill become law, and it would soon be made compulsory throughout the length and breadth of the land. He confessed that if there was to be a change, he would rather it were made compulsory at once. They would then know what they had to grapple with. Some discharged exciseman or officer, formerly employed in collecting the paper duty, was to be sent down by the Inland Revenue to collect the taxes; the country would be formed into little arrondissements as the Commissioners might think fit, and sous-préfets were to be appointed for the collection of taxes, whose office would become a focus of espionage. The clerks of the Commissioners, he found, were to be paid one penny for each notice sent out, which would not remunerate them for their trouble. At present notices were distributed by the local collectors, who went from house to house and collected the taxes, which he believed were cheerfully paid; but under the new system persons were to go to the market town to pay their taxes: if the amount was small it might be paid in postage stamps, but defaulters would be returned to the Exchequer, and costs incurred, probably twenty times the original sum. He could not see how that could be called an economical measure. When the question was first agitated it was referred to the local Commissioners of Taxes, whose opinion, it was understood, was very generally against it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The majority affirmed it.] Then, why was this Bill not brought forward four years ago? It was said that £50,000 would be saved by this Bill, but the omission of the metropolis would very much reduce that amount; and when they came to consider the allowance made to the assessors and collectors, it was difficult

  2091
  to see any economy in the measure. The Bill would be injurious to the country; it would be ill-received by gentlemen whose services had been valuable to the State, and they were to be treated with contumely and placed in a position that made their duty irksome to them. He should, therefore, take the sense of the House, and move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  MR. PACKEsaid, he rose to second the Amendment. He should like to know some good reason for the proposed change in the system of collecting the taxes. The right hon. Gentleman had happily for himself found the means to muzzle the sixteen Members for the metropolis. ["No, no!"] If that was not so he had no doubt their votes would be given against the Bill. Strong petitions had been presented against the Bill from the Tower Hamlets, from Marylebone, and St. Martin's, Westminster. In addition, petitions had come from all parts of the country, for there never was a more unpopular Bill. There were very strong petitions from Birmingham, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Bath, Stockport, West Bromwich, and other influential towns, against the Bill. People generally were not very fond of paying taxes, but if they must pay them they did not like to have the unnecessary trouble and inconvenience put upon them which the Bill proposed. There were many small sums which the poorer classes had to pay for taxes, and they would not like to have to walk several miles to the market town to pay them. There ought to be very strong reasons to justify them in passing a Bill to inflict the burden on the poorer classes, and he had heard none at present. Another objectionable feature of the Bill was, that persons living in the country would have to pay their taxes to the exciseman—never a very popular officer— instead of to the village collector, as heretofore. He, therefore, very cordially seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir John Trollope.)
  MR. COXsaid, he rose at the same time as the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Packe) and for the same purpose, to second the Amendment. Although he sat there as one of the sixteen representatives of the metropolis, if a Bill which applied to the country generally, excepting the metro-
  2092
  polis, was in his opinion a bad Bill, he held himself free to vote against it. He had gone into the lobby against the second reading because he believed the Bill to be a bad Bill, and one which showed the tendency of the present Government to introduce a complete system of centralization. Thinking that such a measure ought not to apply to the metropolis, he also thought that it ought not to be inflicted upon any other part of the country. He would like to hear the opinion of the representatives of large constituencies, such as Liverpool and Birmingham, upon the question why their constituents should be brought under the operation of the Bill if the metropolis was exempted? He could assure the House he knew of no compact between the metropolitan Members and the Government in relation to this Bill. He had heard that one of the Members for Middlesex did communicate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declined to receive the deputation, and referred them to the Chief Commissioner of Inland Revenue. What further took place he could not say. However, as he had voted against the second reading of the Bill, so he should vote against the third reading, believing that it would do much harm and could do no good.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must admit that there were parts of the Bill which deserved approval, such as allowing payments of taxes to be made by Post Office orders, and by stamps, and also the removal of the liability to pay taxes twice over, owing to defalcations on the part of the collectors. Still he had been disagreeably impressed by the exemption granted to the metropolis. The result would be that if passed the measure would really only operate in the country districts, an exceptional mode of legislation which was very objectionable. Again, the Bill proposed a complete change in the mode of payment of the assessors. Under the old law the collectors were paid by a poundage; but under the proposed measure they were to be paid at the rate of three half-pence a line on the certificate of assessment. He wished to ask for an explanation of that mode of payment. It would be extremely difficult, he believed, to carry the measure into operation in large towns; but it was in the country districts that it was proposed to work the Bill, and so far as he was informed, the assessors in those districts would receive no remuneration at all. In his part of the country there were some

  2093
  places where only two or three persons were assessed, and the consequence would be that the remuneration to the assessors would be so trifling that he could not suppose the local Commissioners would be content to permit the introduction of the Government Bill. He should, therefore, vote against the third reading of the Bill, unless he received a satisfactory explanation. The separation of the collection from the assessment he did not complain of, but he thought the Government should take care that the remuneration should be proportionate to the duties to be performed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had heard with surprise the objections of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trollope), that the character of the Bill as a permissive Bill was something quite new. The fact was that all legislation in respect of local self-government during the last twenty years, had been of a permissive character. Then as to the exemption of the metropolis from the Bill, he would remind the House that when the Municipal Reform Act was passed the metropolis was exempted, and when it became necessary to deal with the local management of the metropolis a special Act was passed. There was nothing, therefore, extraordinary in the principle of the Bill of exempting the metropolis from its provisions. It had been said that the exemption was the result of a compromise between the metropolitan Members and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he certainly was not aware of any such compromise. If the Bill were extended to the metropolis it would be necessary to introduce some special provisions, in order to place it on the same footing as the rest of the country. If the Bill were not found suitable, and if it were rejected throughout the country, there could not possibly be any danger to the metropolis; but if, on the other hand, its working were found to be beneficial, there was no reason why its advantages could not be extended to the metropolis at a future time. As the Bill at present Stood, however, he believed it would be very injurious to the metropolis.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, that he had supported the Bill on its second reading because he concurred in the principle, and he was still of opinion that if it was carried out in a proper manner it would confer a boon upon the ratepayers by effecting a considerable saving. He had, however, a strong feeling against the metropolis being
  2094
  exempted from its provisions, and he therefore thought it his duty to oppose the third reading of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not imagine how the test of value of the Bill could be found in the exemption of the metropolis from its operation. If the Bill were a good one for the ratepayers generally, the exclusion of the metropolis could only be so far disadvantageous to the metropolis itself. If, on the other hand, the Bill called upon the ratepayers to make needless sacrifices, and placed them under new disabilities, it should be rejected altogether. The question of the exclusion of the metropolis was fully debated in Committee, and he could say that all the knowledge he had of the support of, or opposition to the Bill by the metropolitan Members, was that the hon. Member for Finsbury opposed it, and the hon. Members for Lambeth and the Tower Hamlets supported it. How, therefore, it was possible that the exclusion of the metropolis was to determine the question, whether the Bill was a good or a bad Bill, he could not comprehend. That the exclusion or inclusion of the metropolis might be a mistake was another question, but he could not understand how that could form the turning point of the rejection or acceptance of the Bill. The exclusion of the metropolis was, however, to be taken in connection with another feature of the measure. The Bill was a permissive Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill had founded his opposition to the measure in a great degree upon the fact, that it was a permissive Bill; but he must remind the House that no measure of the kind could be passed unless it were a permissive Bill, so that the choice lay between a permissive Bill or no Bill at all. The idea of passing a compulsory measure to wrest from the hands of the local Commissioners the valuable patronage they at present enjoyed was, he believed, a perfectly visionary project. Every one must acknowledge that the services rendered by the Commissioners were not only valuable but essential to the working of the direct taxation of this country, and nothing that he had ever said in that House had had the slightest tendency to weaken the system or undermine the authority of the Commissioners. He had at all times endeavoured to magnify the obligations which were due to the Commissioners, and in every way to sustain their authority, and

  2095
  he had not in any degree departed from that principle in the present Bill. The Commissioners themselves excluded the metropolis. They knew perfectly well from the communications that they had received, that the majority of the Boards were in favour of such a measure as the one before the House. He had stated previously that there were reasons in favour of the exclusion of the metropolis—resons which did not extend to other places. It was not, like most towns in the country, a centre for the payment of the country district around. In London there were no officers who were capable of performing the duties which would be intrusted to them under the provisions of the Bill, and a new set would consequently have to be appointed. It might, therefore, have been said that their object in including the metropolis was to obtain the appointment of so many new officers. One objection to the present system was the extreme uncertainty and slowness of the collection of the revenue. They had but little command over the officers, and the money even after its collection found its way to the Exchequer but slowly. In London this did not apply. There the payments were made by the collectors immediately to Somerset House. The case of the metropolis and of the large towns was entirely distinct, because in most of the large towns there would not be a power of separate action which would enable them to exempt themselves from the provisions of the Bill, whereas in London there was such a power, and it was morally certain that the power would be exercised. To hon. Gentlemen, therefore, who did not object to the principle of the Bill, he must point out that the exclusion of the metropolis was much more nominal than real, and could not determine the question whether the Bill was a good or a bad one. It was said that the Bill was most unpopular in the country. Now, if he had evidence of that unpopularity he should be surprised indeed, the object of the Bill being merely to insure certainty, regularity, and responsibility, and to relieve the taxpayers from inconvenience. The desire of the Government was not to obtain advantages for the State as against the taxpayer, but to substitute a good system for a very defective one, as far as the collection of taxes was concerned. As to the alleged unpopularity of the Bill, he did not see how that could be when it had been for four months before the country,
  2096
  and the number of petitioners against it was only between 3,000 and 4,000. That was a pretty good answer to the statement as to unpopularity, when it was remembered that the Bill could not be expected to be acceptable to a certain class of paid officers—the collectors and assessors of taxes throughout the country. With regard to the assessors, the present law recognized no payment to the assessor except in case of the income tax, as to which the payment was left in the Bill precisely as it stood at present. In the case of the assessed taxes, the assessor received no payment whatever. But, then, it was said that the assessorship was united with the collectorship. The intention of the law, however, was that the assessor and the collector should be totally different persons, and should, in fact, act as a check upon each other. The law was now evaded by placing the two offices in the same hands; but it was proposed to separate the two offices, and so to act really up to what was now the theory of the law. Practically, no doubt, the assessor had been a paid officer, and the Government, taking the matter into consideration, had provided a mode of remuneration for him. Then it was said that a permissive Bill ought only to be adopted where the circumstances of the country were different. Well, that was exactly the fact, the circumstances of the country were different. Then, as to the payment of the assessors, in populous places the business of assessing and collecting taxes was very valuable; in thinly populated places it was a great burden. The Bill had been made permissive so as to respect the discretion of the Commissioners; but that was no reason why the Government should not consider the case of those assessors and collectors —and they were very numerous—whose duties were rather a burden than a privilege. So unremunerative was the business of collection, though often joined with assessment, that in some places the inhabitants raised a salary for the collector In rural districts the office was accepted with great reluctance, and was often imposed in defiance of the strongest remonstrances. He frequently had letters from persons complaining that they had been required by the Commissioners to act as collectors, and it was said that in some instances the office was conferred on persons from pique and spleen. One of the principal objects of the Bill was the giving of relief in cases where the office was felt

  2097
  to be burdensome. Saving was not the only consideration; and this saving must be materially diminished by the compensation which must be paid to the collectors; but he freely admitted that no saying to be effected would justify the passing of a burdensome Bill affecting the collection of taxes. There were other reasons why the Bill should pass; and among these were the present liability of parishes to re-assessment, through the neglect of the Commissioners or through default. He supposed there was not a week that he was not obliged to answer some person or another who complained of a collector, and he could not interfere, because the collectors were not Government officers; but this Bill would enable towns to relieve themselves of that state of things. As to the objection that the metropolis was exempted, he would remind the House that the exemption was the act of the Committee. If the Committee had determined to include the metropolis, the Government would have endeavoured to introduce provisions for carrying out that object; but, on the other hand, if the Bill was desired by the people of Liverpool, Birmingham, and other large towns, the exemption of the metropolis afforded no reason why they should not have it. Whenever the Commissioners liked to exempt themselves they could do so; but a majority of the Commissioners had expressed themselves to be favourable to the Bill, so that he thought the right hon. Baronet must not have attended to that point. A large number of the Commissioners had not replied at all to the application made to them on the subject, and therefore he thought that they might be considered favourable to the measure. He thought it would be found that the remuneration which might be allowed under the Bill would be sufficient, for when it was said that the clerks would have to pay a penny for the postage-stamp on the notice, for which they were to be allowed only a penny, he would observe, in reply, that a clerk would have his percentage besides, and that where he had to send out notices to 100 persona in the same street, it was not likely he would put stamps on the notices when he could have them delivered by a messenger for, perhaps, about a shilling. It was, however, in the hands of the House to do what it pleased with the Bill, but he would remind hon. Members that the people of Ireland and Scotland were contented with a system similar to the one now proposed,
  2098
  but inferior to it, inasmuch as in Ireland and Scotland the people could not pay their taxes in stamps or by money orders. He hoped, however, that they would be able to extend the latter advantage to the sister kingdoms.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that before the House went to a division there was one point on which it ought to be well informed. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Trollope) had referred to the communications which had been made to the various Commissioners of the land tax in different parts of the country in the year 1860, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that on the whole the majority of those who had answered the questions put to them were favourable to this measure, or to a measure more extensive, and he had rather twitted his right hon. Friend for not having paid sufficient attention to the circumstance. Now it was impossible for any private information to compete with that possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Baronet had good authority for the statement he had made. In the Committee which sat two years ago, over which the hon. Member for Liverpool presided, the question of the collection of taxes by Government officers was raised, and Mr. Pressly, the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, in reply to a question put to him with regard to the propriety of some such alteration as that now proposed, said—
  "It would be very desirable that the Government should appoint their own assessors and collectors; at the same time we thought it necessary, some three or four years ago, to address letters to all the Boards of Commissioners in the country, and after reading the answers of the clerks we found it impossible to carry it out."
  The principal Secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue, Mr. Dobson, was also examined by the game Committee as to the circular, and he stated—
  "The replies received were in opposition to our views; there were some consenting parties, but generally speaking they were in opposition to our views."
  When asked—
  "Can you state generally the nature of the arguments against the proposed change?"
  the reply was—
  "No; but as far as my recollection serves they would not condescend to argue the point at all."
  That was the sort of evidence given before the Committee two years ago, and if

  2099
  it showed that the measure was unpopular, it was hardly fair to twit his right hon. Friend with not having attended to the subject. There was one point on which hon. Members ought to make up their minds, and that was the cardinal point— the permissive character of the Bill. He must say for himself that he approved of the main object of the Bill, and he should be glad if they could arrive at a system by which the collection of the revenue might be placed in the hands of collectors appointed by the Government; but it was a very delicate question, and one which came home to every taxpayer in the kingdom. Now, what was the House called upon to do? It was asked to give a permissive power to Boards in different parts of the country to impose upon the taxpayers a system which we did not venture to impose on them ourselves by direct legislation. That was a principle against which he decidedly protested. It had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that permissive legislation had formed the basis of all local legislation for the last twenty years, and the Local Management Act had been instanced; but there was all the difference in the world between permissive legislation which placed the choice in the hands of the taxpayers, and that where the permission was given to a body of men who were neither taxpayers nor elected by taxpayers. As a magistrate he had himself experienced great difficulty in dealing with cases of permissive legislation like the Highways and Police Acts. The magistrates were appointed by the Crown, not by the ratepayers, and it was not pleasant for them to have to impose taxation. That House, which was elected by the taxpayers of the country, shrank from imposing burdens on those whom they really represented, and transferred the responsibility to the nominees of the Crown. Nothing could be more odious than the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the question. He asked the House to give these local authorities power to refuse this legislation, which he believed to be desirable, because he thought they ought to be tender in the matter of patronage. Anything more odious than that mode of stating the case he could not conceive. In what position would the Commissioners stand towards the taxpayers of the country? They were asked to say whether certain measures should be enforced which that House was afraid
  2100
  to enforce, because they would be unpopular, and the Commissioners were told that they had that permission, because they had a great deal of valuable patronage in their hands. That was placing those gentlemen in a position of great difficulty. The truth was they ought to deal with the matter as one of principle. If the House thought it right for the interests of the country that the collection of these taxes should be placed in the hands of Government officials, they ought to come boldly forward and take the responsibility on themselves. Then they would find out what was the real opinion of their constituents, for it was hardly to be expected that many petitions would come in against the Bill so long as people thought that their local Commissioners would stand between them and its adoption. No doubt there might be strong grounds for saying that it was desirable that collectors should be appointed by the Government. There had, it was quite true, been large defalcations, and the taxpayers had suffered in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had altogether omitted to mention that the largest defalcations had happened in the metropolis, which was excluded from the Bill. In one ward there had been a defalcation of £1,700 or £1,800, and in another of £6,000. He could not understand why the metropolis was excluded. If there was any truth in the impression that the metropolis was omitted because the opposition of the metropolis was found so formidable, then that ought to make the House pause before passing the Bill. If, on the other hand, it was known beforehand that the London Commissioners would reject the Bill, what need for leaving them out? He did not exactly understand what was to be the machinery of the Bill. How were they going to deal with the stamp distributors? Already they had to give large security, and if additional security was to be demanded from them, it would be necessary to make some provision for additional compensation. The case was full of difficulties, and he believed it would be most unwise to pass the Bill in such a form.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that with regard to Mr. Pressly he believed that gentleman's opinion was that a compulsory measure would be most economical, but that no such Bill would be likely to pass. As to Mr. Dobson, he still believed, speaking from me-

  2101
  mory, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not accurately stated his opinion.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPE: The blue-book shows that the right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I adhere to my statement.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he could explain why the metropolis had been excluded. The Bill was a permissive Bill, and the position of the metropolis was different to that of Liverpool or any other large town. In Liverpool all the inhabitants would have an opportunity of saying whether they would adopt the Bill or not. But Southwark, for instance, consisted of large parishes, such as Bermondsey, and those parishes would not have had an opportunity of considering whether they would adopt the Bill or not, because they were connected with the Commissioners throughout the whole county. Those Commissioners would be in favour of adopting the Bill, and so the large parishes of Southwark would be swamped.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, the Amendment of which he had given notice was not intended to exclude the rural districts at all. There were two classes of tax collectors—those who received large amounts and, therefore, large remuneration, and those who received small amounts and whose remuneration was in proportion, and it was to those two classes that his Amendment applied. He was bound, of course, to look to the interests of his own constituents, and the inhabitants of the metropolis had in large numbers petitioned against the Bill. The Amendment of which he had given notice would not only have referred to the metropolis, but also to other large towns; but when he found that the Members for some of those large towns, the hon. Member for Liverpool for instance, were not against the Bill, he felt bound to give up his Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished, in justice to the hon. Member (Mr. Harvey Lewis), to make one observation. On a former occasion he (Mr. Newdegate) had stated that the withdrawal of the hon. Member's Amendment was so sudden that the large towns had been taken by surprise; but the hon. Member had since written to him and conclusively shown that a circular was issued which gave the large towns due notice of the intention to withdraw the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had justified the Bill before the House by saying that in many of the rural districts the collectorates
  2102
  were so poor that the Commissioners sought by the Bill to remedy this evil—under which the collectors would be appointed by the Inland Revenue Office. But why were the rural collectorates so poor? Because no measure had been introduced to consolidate these collectorates; for by giving to one collector several parishes instead of one, the whole difficulty upon which the Bill was founded would be removed. The Inland Revenue Office had long aimed at appropriating to itself these appointments. The Inland Revenue officers thought that they were in danger of want of employment; he had heard upon good authority that it was to their influence that no measure for consolidating collectorates in the country had been brought in, thus removing the admitted difficulty to remedy which the Bill had been introduced. It was perfectly well understood why Middlesex objected to being included in the Bill; and the reason was this, that in several parishes in that county the operation proposed by this Bill had been tested, and the effect was found to be, that where previously the expense of the collection of taxes was about £200, when the collection was made by the Revenue officers the expense amounted to more than £1,000. The Bill was another development of the principle of centralization, an attempt to deprive local bodies of their patronage and functions. It was perfectly plain that if this Bill were to pass the next appointment which would be grasped at by the Inland Revenue Board was that of assessors; and he did not know how the country would be satisfied when it was found that the metropolis would be excluded from such centralized interference, whilst the private affairs of every firm in the provincial towns and rural districts would be subject to the inspection of Government officers.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 128 Noes 132: Majority 4.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Third Reading put off for three months.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING (IRELAND) BILL

  [BILL 137.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. It had two objects, the first and principal

  2103
  was to secure to the travelling public the right, at least, to one train upon Sunday, and next, to procure for third-class passengers certain privileges to which they were entitled. As the latter object was of minor importance, and one that could be better discussed in Committee, he would not enter upon it in that stage of the measure. But to carry out his main object he proposed that every railway company in Ireland should be compelled to run at least one train each way on Sunday. In consequence of the great monopoly granted to railway companies, Parliament from the earliest times had interfered for the regulation of traffic, the Act of 1844, which might be called the Magna Charta of railway passengers, providing that, among other things, a train should run each way daily at a certain rate, and that similar fares should obtain upon Sundays, if trains run upon those days, which was a matter left optional with the companies. The practice of running trains upon Sundays was almost universal in Ireland as well as in England, but in November last the Limerick and Waterford Railway, whose district contained 600,000, Inhabitants, suddenly discontinued its previous custom of running Sunday trains, and thereby imprisoned all the people in that part of the country, from Saturday night to Monday morning. Remonstrances had been addressed to the directors, and the corporation of Limerick, a city with 45,000 inhabitants, accustomed to pleasure trips to Castleconnell and elsewhere, memorialized the board, and all to no purpose. It was stated that the effect of his Bill would be to compel the railway employés to work on Sundays. There was, of course, some truth in that; but he only asked for the minimum of work from them—namely, one train per day. Then came the question, whether a Legislature ought to interfere and compel railway directors to run a train on Sundays. He should not propose such a measure for Scotland; but there was no such strict observance of the Sunday in England or Ireland. There was nothing in the objection that the Bill would vary the conditions on which the companies had received the sanction of Parliament, for Parliament had frequently legislated in disregard of that objection.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLAKE, in moving the rejection
  2104
  of the Bill, regretted he could not do so in as eloquent terms as the hon. and learned Baronet who had proposed it, but he would imitate him in one important respect by trespassing very briefly on the time of the House, as it was then past midnight. He objected to the measure on three grounds— first, it imposed obligations on existing companies which they neither undertook nor contemplated when they constructed their lines; next, gave very arbitrary powers, to Government which might be exercised to the serious detriment of companies; and, lastly, if the contemplated powers were imposed, great injustice and loss would be inflicted on the shareholders, The hon. Baronet had very candidly stated that it was in order to compel the lines in the counties of Limerick and Clare, to run on Sundays that he had introduced the Bill, and he would at once take issue with him on those lines, and expected, without carrying his illustration further, to prove that it would be most unjust of the House to pass the Bill. The Waterford and Limerick was 77 miles long, Limerick and Ennis 25 do., Limerick and Foynes 26 do., Limerick and Castleconnell 13 do. The first of these lines was paying a dividend of little more than 1 per cent to the shareholders, and the other three nothing, and some of them, he believed, hardly met their expenses. They had tried the experiment of running on Sunday with ruinous loss, sometimes with four passengers, and occasionally with only one. To save the shareholders from further injury, the directors had very wisely ceased the Sunday traffic, but on one of the lines it was resumed lately for the summer months. Surely it was not fair to expect, when the law under which the shareholders invested their money enabled them to protect themselves, by not running on a day that left the greatest loss, it would be most unfair now to force them to do so. He spoke feelingly on the subject, having been a shareholder in one of them, and having some indirect interest in another. Allusion had been made to, the lines being in the hands of opulent individuals, and it was advanced as a reason for compelling them to have a Sunday traffic, a very insufficient reason he submitted; but he thought it was very lucky for the constituents of the promoters of the Bill, that the lines were in the hands of men of spirit and capital, or they might share the fate of the Bagnalstown and Wexford line, which did not run either on week days or Sundays. He

  2105
  would leave it to Members mere pious than he unfortunately was to press the Sabbattarian view of the question; but this he would say, that it was most creditable to the chairman and directors of the company that, amongst other reasons for not running on Sundays, was the desire to allow their 800 officials to attend properly to their religious duties and spend a quiet day with their families, and not the least amongst the hardships the Bill would impose was compelling these poor men to be on duty for the doubtful convenience of a few persons who could travel probably quite as well on week days. The professed object of the hon. Barnoet was to give facilities for 600,000 people to travel, who, singularly enough, had not sent in even one petition to support him in his efforts for them, and it would be still more extraordinary if they now took to travelling on so large a scale on Sundays, when previously their custom on that day left a heavy loss. But let his hon. Friend take care that his efforts, if successful, would not place them in a worse position, as the directors, if compelled to run on Sundays, would probably have to take off some of the week day trains. As several hon. Friends had promised to speak in support of his Motion, he would not trespass more than by entreating the House, as an act of justice and mercy to those on whose behalf he spoke, not to pass a measure so unprecedented, and calculated to inflict such hardship, and begged to move that it be read a second time on that day three months.
  LORD NAASsaid, that railway companies had obtained their Acts under certain restrictions imposed on them in Select Committee, and it would be most unfair by a public general Bill to impose new conditions on these undertakings. Some of these small Irish railways had been for some time worked at a considerable loss, and it would be an ill-advised proceeding on the part of the Legislature to make that loss greater than it otherwise would be by passing the Bill. It was true that a population of 600,000 might be deprived of the means of travelling on Sunday, but probably not one in 100,000 wished to travel on that day. He, therefore, begged to second the Amendment, and he hoped that the House would pause before embarking in legislation of this kind.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Ques-
  2106
  tion to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Blake.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MAJOR GAVINsaid, that 50,000 of his constituents were calling out for the opportunity of travelling on Sundays. No one regretted more than himself that the shareholders in these lines were not making money, but they had driven the public cars and all other conveyances off the road, and, therefore, the population must all become pedestrians unless the trains ran between the termini. He was once brought within twenty, miles of his house on Sunday, and he could not get borne for dinner; and he knew of a case in which a doctor could not be had from Dublin to a person who was dangerously ill for want of such railway accommodation as this Bill sought to provide. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the interests of the majority, and support the Motion for the second reading.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he should support the Bill. Great inconvenience was felt in the north as well as the south of Ireland from the want of Sunday trains. He knew places in which railway communication was suspended for thirty-six hours.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the precedent of the Act of 1844 would not go to sustain the proposal before the House, for that Act referred only to railways which should be incorporated either in that year or subsequently.
  MR. HASSARDcontended that the reason why there were not Sunday trains was because they would not be supported. There were three Sunday trains during the summer season between Limerick and Castleconnell because they paid. And so where the traffic was remunerative trains would be run. He thought, moreover, that if the House legislated at all it should do so with respect to the whole of the kingdom.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he never heard so important a proposition supported on such poor grounds. Notwithstanding the number of persons said to be shut out from travelling for want of railway accommodation, it was quite evident that they were not able to support Sunday trains. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) should ask the House not only to run trains, but to give money to enable the companies to do so. It would be unfair to oblige 800 railway servants to give

  2107
  their services on the Sunday on account of the small number of persons who would require to travel on that day. The latter part of the Bill which would place the poor on a level with the first-class passengers was fair, but he was decidedly opposed to the first part.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he hoped, after the expression of opinion which they had heard, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Bill. He thought the arguments of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) conclusive against the Bill. With regard to the poor gentleman who was suffering, and was unable to obtain medical advice, the question really was whether he was not better without it. They had this saying in the North when a man died, "Did he die by the doctor, or did he come by his death fairly?"
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENtrusted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare would not take the advice to postpone this Bill.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Bill was opposed to the uniform legislation which had taken place on railways. He should vote against the Bill on the ground that they ought not to legislate for one corner of the empire on a different principle from that which they legislated for other parts.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 40: Majority 19.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for three months.

NAVAL AND VICTUALLING STORES BILL— [BILL 151]—(Lords.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the Bill now stood many persons who held Government stores, which they acquired honestly, might be subject to punishment.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought that there would be no such likelihood; but still he should be happy to adopt any Amendment if it should be found necessary.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

  SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) SALARIES.
  Resolution reported.
  "That the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury be authorized to increase the Salaries of certain Sheriffs Substitute in Scotland."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered* to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill for the prevention of Contagious Diseases at certain Naval and Military Stations, ordered* to be be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Sir MORTON PETO, and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented*, and read 1o. [Bill 163.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.